Busted: Fox News CPAC Ron Paul Video Deception

[sharpsteve2003]

From SaveOurSovereignty3 on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwo0Iyrh1Zk

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

[axiomata]

Add it to the file.

[malkusm]

Adding this to my media bias thread.

[Michael Landon]

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

[JoshLowry]

Copied thread to Media Spin subforum.

[Mark37snj]

Im sorry, I don't have the words for how AWSOME this video is and how much it is gona help Ron Paul. My full comment is reserved for a later date.

[muzzled dogg]

damn i gotta spread this around

[JoshLowry]

More fuel for the fire!

This entire campaign revolves around blowback. The harder they try to keep the ball below the water, the faster it will rise.

[Bruno]

Guess they didn't think people would notice he wasn't wearing the lanyard that he was in 2010.

[AZKing]

Freakin' disgusting. I've never liked Fox News, but damnit, this is ridiculous.

[Xchange]

This is huge..



I'm telling

[CaseyJones]

send it to drudge?

[muzzled dogg]

is there any article for it tho? they'll link to an article no matter how independent it is but i dunno if they'll link straight to a video

[Original_Intent]

Just FYI I tried to vote up the video on YouTube and it says "This feature is disabled at the moment". I bet view count is disabled as well - YouTube - the bitch is back!

[Mark37snj]

I just sent Bill O'reilly this email caused I wished to opine :D

Dear Mr. O'reilly:
Did you know that Fox news doctored Ron Paul's CPAC 2011 win to make it appear that he was heavily booed when in fact he was heavily cheered. This is the video to prove it but you may have already seen it cause it will probably go viral.

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

So I have to ask this question regarding this deception by Fox News. Are you, Bill O'reilly, really Fair and Balanced? Is Fox News Fair and Balanced?

Sincerely
My Name
My City and State

[squarepusher]

wow, they played 2010 clip?

[JoshLowry]

wow, they played 2010 clip?

Correct.

[sevin]

send it to drudge?

Send it everywhere you can think of! Digg, Reddit, everywhere! People need to understand that Fox News is full of shit and this is a great example.

I am so pissed off right now.

[Bruno]

send it to drudge?

Yes. I just did.

[Zatch]

Help get this on the front page of reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/fm7zv/busted_fox_news_cpac_ron_paul_video_deception/

[libertybrewcity]

In the full clip they also put Gary Johnson in 4th place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDi-8kJ7Dao&feature=player_embedded#at=89

[rp08orbust]

I made some suggestions for a condensed version 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

[Sentinelrv]

Digg it!

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

This is a shorter version.

[Immortal Technique]

is there any article for it tho? they'll link to an article no matter how independent it is but i dunno if they'll link straight to a video

He's done it with me fairly recently actually

http://i56.tinypic.com/2pzh9o5.gif

A red link at that :P

it directly linked to this video i had uploaded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj47lB1a-0Y

Airing Date Jan.09, 2011

Father Of 9 Year Old Murder Victim In Tucson Does Not Want Restrictions Of Freedoms Because Of Incident.

[R3volutionJedi]

This is just sick. Gets me fired up more, but breaks my heart more

[sevin]

Digg it!

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

This is a shorter version.

Yeah, this video is WAY better. This is the video to spread around the Internet. It gets right to the point. The other video takes too long and will lose most people's interest.

[sarahdeez]

Yeah, this video is WAY better. This is the video to spread around the Internet. It gets right to the point. The other video takes too long and will lose most people's interest.

Agree.

[sevin]

So I've submitted this to digg, reddit, uploaded the better video to youtube and a couple other sites and telling people to check out Ronpaul.org. There are reasons to get angry at the media everyday, but for some reason this one video just drives me crazy! It's so blatant and shameful. Makes me want to do something about it.

[Mini-Me]

The first video is longer, but I prefer it for two reasons:
First, it shows a much more "official" video of the real 2011 announcement, better conveying the different venue, different clothes, and different words of the announcer this year. It also better conveys the way Fox smugly made their lie the FOCUS of their interview introduction. (This rules out the "honest mistake by an absent-minded low level techie" excuse.). All together, these things make the longer video a lot harder-hitting once it finally gets to the punchline, IMO. It does a better job of bulldozing over any cognitive dissonance like, "Maybe it's just that one part of the crowd that likes him so much. Fox News wouldn't lie to us." People who don't want to believe the truth will go to great lengths to hide from it, and the better footage from the longer video makes that harder to do.

Second, the longer video doesn't plug for Infowars at the end. Even among us, there's some argument over the credibility and motives of Infowars, and in any case I think the video stands a bit stronger on its own than as a half-advertisement.

Nevertheless, the best of both worlds would be a shorter video with the same strength as the 6:36 one. The long one is probably too long to go totally viral, but the Oklahoma We Are Change version falls short in terms of raw power and shock value.

[Raditude]

Let's trend this on Twitter:

#foxnewsbullshit http://youtu.be/CaIh0GzMawE

[civusamericanus]

Let's trend this on Twitter:

#foxnewsbullshit http://youtu.be/CaIh0GzMawE

This video needs to include Hemmer talking about the boos to Ron Paul. The whole purpose was to try and weaken Ron Paul's defense from the start, and without Hemmer's dialogue with Ron Paul, the reason we're angry doesn't resonate.

[Liberty Rebellion]

This is all over the Facebooks. Can't say I'm surprised by this. I knew their motives for pimping Austrian economics and libertarian philosophy were impure

[ApathyCuredRP]

I posted this in the thread in general politics. Have we made the campaign aware of this? We can capitalize on this somehow I am sure even if to just send a message.

See the "Public Figure Doctrine" below

From: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...el+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.

[psi2941]

lets get our most trust news anchor to report this! Jon Stewart email the daily show for a non bias report!

[ApathyCuredRP]

lets get our most trust news anchor to report this! Jon Stewart email the daily show for a non bias report!

Wonder what the Judge thinks ? Surely FOX wouldn't let him talk about it hahha

[psi2941]

Wonder what the Judge thinks ? Surely FOX wouldn't let him talk about it hahha

http://forums.thedailyshow.com/?page=ThreadView&thread_id=37100

spam this thread!

[idirtify]

Wonder what the Judge thinks ? Surely FOX wouldn't let him talk about it hahha

Yeah, let’s make sure Napolitano and Stossel know about this blatant journalistic offense their parent network has committed. The false news report is so blatant and serious, it is in itself entirely newsworthy. It is certainly a new low. So not reporting it on a show like Freedom Watch looks very bad and almost becomes part of the story. If the report does not get reported, it should at least become exhibit number one in showing why it’s foolish to depend on news from TV.

[jmdrake]

Great video. But I agree with this comment.

MAKE THIS VIDEO SHORTER

The whole point of it is to expose to FOX news watchers how they're being tricked. Those sorts of people probably won't sit through a video like this that's been unnecessarily padded.


The author didn't need to show the Fox fake 3 times before showing what really happened. In fact I would have rather seen what really happened first and then shown then showed the Fox fake spin. Or at least get the real reaction in within the first 2 minutes. Still, I'm glad this was caught.

[Immortal Technique]

Ok at least we have an article to send to drudge now, infowars did a write up and he posts lots of stuff from there now

Fox News Caught In Shocking Dirty Tricks Stunt Against Ron Paul
http://www.infowars.com/fox-news-caught-in-shocking-dirty-tricks-stunt-against-ron-paul/

[Immortal Technique]

I had to put this video together pretty fast after seeing what FOX did in the Paul interview, i felt i needed for those who don't follow politics to drive home the comparison so they understood what happened.I agree there is much i would have changed had i had a few hours to spare to make it but none the less it is making it's rounds.Don't forget to email FOX and let them know they will not do to us what they did in 08 !

We are more vigilant than ever.

[mello]

I was just on Digg's homepage & saw this listed on the "Hot Stories" section on the right side. It's up to 45 diggs now & if you want to click it up:

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

[jmdrake]

I had to put this video together pretty fast after seeing what FOX did in the Paul interview, i felt i needed for those who don't follow politics to drive home the comparison so they understood what happened.I agree there is much i would have changed had i had a few hours to spare to make it but none the less it is making it's rounds.Don't forget to email FOX and let them know they will not do to us what they did in 08 !

We are more vigilant than ever.

Sorry I didn't emphasize this enough but YOU ROCK FOR DOING THIS! As we go forward into this next election cycle we need to collaborate more. For instance, rather than talk about how this video could be done differently, I ought to do my own version. :o

[Matt Collins]

Here is the phone number to the Fox Newsroom.

Flood their phone lines and let them know what we think about this:
212-301-5800

(if you run that number through Google you can find some more interesting contacts at FNC too)

[K466]

I noticed this immediately as I watched the interview. This is just another form of subtle propaganda we are up against. Disgusting, with a few exceptions fox News is as rotten as they get.

[idirtify]

Freedom Watch feedback
http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas

here’s what I sent:

Judge Napolitano,
Your parent network, FOX News, has committed a journalistic offense that is so egregious it merits its own story. When reporting the announcement of Ron Paul’s CPAC straw-poll win, it intentionally and maliciously switched out the tape of this year’s jubilant audience response and replaced it with a tape of last year’s which contained lots of boos. (See the YT video link.) Besides the obvious Libel and Defamation offenses, this is a new low for journalistic integrity. Please report it on your show. If you don’t, you risk becoming part of the story.

--------------------

I think you can vote on airing the story.

[erowe1]

This is picking up some steam. Nice work whoever caught it.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/16/uncovered-fox-news-deceptively-used-old-cpac-footage-to-smear-ron-paul/
http://www.longislandpress.com/2011/02/16/fox-news-caught-fox-news-caught-in-ron-paul-stunt/
http://www.wagerrun.com/2861/fox-news-caught-switching-the-footage/

[PaulineDisciple]

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

[Immortal Technique]

This is picking up some steam. Nice work whoever caught it.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/16/uncovered-fox-news-deceptively-used-old-cpac-footage-to-smear-ron-paul/
http://www.longislandpress.com/2011/02/16/fox-news-caught-fox-news-caught-in-ron-paul-stunt/
http://www.wagerrun.com/2861/fox-news-caught-switching-the-footage/

Damn that is nice !

[Sola_Fide]

This is picking up some steam. Nice work whoever caught it.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/16/uncovered-fox-news-deceptively-used-old-cpac-footage-to-smear-ron-paul/
http://www.longislandpress.com/2011/02/16/fox-news-caught-fox-news-caught-in-ron-paul-stunt/
http://www.wagerrun.com/2861/fox-news-caught-switching-the-footage/

Nice!

Thanks for those links Erowe.

[erowe1]

Another. The opening line of this one is brilliant.
http://blogs.babble.com/famecrawler/2011/02/16/fox-news-caught-deceiving-public-again-what-did-they-do-this-time/

This seems like perfect fodder for The Daily Show. Jon Stewart and his gang love to skewer Fox News whenever they can.

Of course! Why didn't we think of that (or maybe we did, I haven't read all the posts on this)?

I'm going to submit this story in the Drudge Report tip box. I can't find any way to send the tip to the Daily Show. If anyone knows, then please share it with them.

[sharpsteve2003]

I can't find any way to send the tip to the Daily Show. If anyone knows, then please share it with them.

viewer feedback form. Select The Daily Show with Jon Stewart from the "Topic" drop down menu.
http://www.comedycentral.com/help/questionsCC.jhtml

[S.Shorland]

The reporter says 'no doubt unfazed by the reaction'.They set Ron Paul up so people would think 'the brazen old bastard! what a thick skin he has!' by his completely innocent reaction.(It will make people 'think',feel actually, that Ron is the worst sort of liar.So callous that he can lie without any physical 'flinch' or emotional connection.This was really a very professional job).Really,you should keep pressing until there is an apology or this is the perfect hit piece.

[sevin]

I was just on Digg's homepage & saw this listed on the "Hot Stories" section on the right side. It's up to 45 diggs now & if you want to click it up:

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

Dugg.

I submitted the first video to Reddit. So far, 1358 up votes and 597 down votes. I think some of those down votes are from people who were too impatient to watch the whole thing and understand what's going on (at least that's what I gather from some of the comments).

Link: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/fm8oy/busted_fox_news_cpac_deception/

[Sola_Fide]

Anyone know how we can contact Bill Hemmer directly? That would be fun:)

[sharpsteve2003]

Anyone know how we can contact Bill Hemmer directly? That would be fun:)

His Twitter is @BillHemmer or http://twitter.com/#!/BillHemmer

Here are tweets with @BillHemmer http://twitter.com/#!/search/%40BillHemmer

[Immortal Technique]

Now on front page of rawstory

http://www.rawstory.com/

[S.Shorland]

Link to the video of 'the' presidential debate when the questioners were laughing at Paul.ALSO that phone interview with three on a couch a few days ago when one of the interviewers was checking his i-phone and Ron was interrupted as soon as he attempted to talk about 'forbidden' topics.At the end,the female interviewer ended with: 'let us know when you've made your - DECISION' in a 'we know you've already made it,you liar' fashion.This is a pattern and not an isolated incident.

[Anti Federalist]

I was just able to watch this video...WTF?

I mean, really, WTF?

This report is claiming that Faux is planning on issuing a "correction" on Thursday 17 Feb.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-airing-of-old-cpac-footage-showing-crowd-booing-ron-paul-was-a-mistake/

http://a.images.blip.tv/RealityReport-FOXDeceivesSwapsCPACStrawPollFootage435.png

[idirtify]

This report is claiming that Faux is planning on issuing a "correction" on Thursday 17 Feb.


No matter whether they try to claim it was a mistake, their (certainly the show’s, if not the whole network’s) competence and credibility as a news organization are sufficiently destroyed. From now on, whenever we run across anyone who still watches/believes, all we have to do is show them this video and let them see the deceit and malice for themselves.

[Immortal Technique]

Holy Crap that video went viral
Nice work gang !

[CableNewsJunkie]

No matter whether they try to claim it was a mistake, their (certainly the show’s, if not the whole network’s) competence and credibility as a news organization are sufficiently destroyed. From now on, whenever we run across anyone who still watches/believes, all we have to do is show them this video and let them see the deceit and malice for themselves.

This video, along with others out there, is going to serve as a new wake up call for a lot of people. They'll start to understand to what extent Fox and the RNC have co-opted the "tea parties."

I am hopeful that we'll see a big boost of support after this.