digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

An embarrassed Fox News hits Wikipedia

crooksandliars.com — For example, embarrassing content from Media Matters about FNC personalities was quietly removed. Criticism of Keith Olbermann and Al Franken was accenuated. The network that specializes in on-air propoganda had taken its usual schtick to Wiki pages. With that in mind, it shouldn ’t surprise anyone that Fox News’ Chris Wallace — you guessed it — so

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Rovian, on 10/10/2007, -11/+55Sick and getting sicker!
    • quarkie, on 10/10/2007, -26/+7Okay I get it. Digg hates fox news. I have no opinion on them being Canadian and free from American news media in general (I love CBC's: The National), but it is blatant bias to not even mention the other organizations that did the same thing. And yes I am going to link to LGF and feel fine about doing it, because unlike crooks and liars, they mentioned multiple sites that did this, not just fox news. But here you go:
      United Nations: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26670&only&rss
      BBC: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669&only&rss
      New York Times: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26667&only&rss
      Fox News:http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26689&only&rss
      • bugsy187, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Digg doesn't hate anything. It's a news website. If there's a trend of opinion among readers, it's a natural part of people having opinions.

        I don't doubt that other new organizations may have tampered with wikipedia, but I don't see the point of crying bias when everyone has it.
        • mdhauke, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6"Digg doesn't hate anything. It's a news website. If there's a trend of opinion among readers, it's a natural part of people having opinions."

          You say that this is a news website, and yet in the very next sentence you mention opinion. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The problem with using Digg to find your news is that this site is perhaps as biased as those like thinkprogress.org, rawstory,org, etc. Most of the users on this site are liberal, and most of the bury and digg "brigades" around here push anti-administration stories to the top. Even those with made up, opinionated titles such as this one.

          The "trend of opinion" at digg means nothing in the grand scheme of things and very rarely reflects that of the American public, and many time goes against it. Just because something is popular here doesn't make it "right" or in some cases even "true."

          Yet despite the best effort of Digg in partnership with MSNBC and sties such as those mentioned above, Fox News continues to dominate the ratings without any sign of letting up. So much for making a difference, huh diggers? Sorry if the truth hurts, don't shoot me I'm just the messenger.
          • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6News without analysis is almost worthless (see your local nightly news, or the "give us 22 minutes and we'll give you the world radio station). Analysis is opinion.

            What we're getting now is not analysis, it's propaganda and vitriol. Also kinds of opinion, but kinds that serve the interests of the reporting agency instead of the interests of the audience.
          • iDragonFly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2No apology needed because your point lacks impact.
            Ratings and quality are two different things.

            Duping lot's of people with heavily funded marketing is barely worth crowing about.
          • bugsy187, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1If Fox News represents the majority, why is it far out of sync with world opinion on political issues, like on the invasion and occupation of Iraq?
        • quarkie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'm well aware of the fact that digg as a whole does not have a single opinion. I can summarize the trends of the users however when compared to the trends of the rest of America. As has been stated many times, fox news is still quite highly rated. Just as:
          Ron Paul is not doing that well in the polls and diggers love him
          Linux does not have large market share and diggers use it
          etc.. etc..
          • bugsy187, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just because I saw the movie Titanic doesn't mean it's a quality film with meaningful content, nor with commentsI agree with.
      • DocHoliday22, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Mate you have to have been living under a rock for the past twenty years not to find Fox News an embarrassment to journalism. I'm from the UK and it seems that every week Fox is getting up to no good.
        • Dewhead, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Really? Specifics please.
        • mdhauke, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I would also like to know how somebody from the UK ever finds the chance to watch Fox News.
        • DocHoliday22, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It's on SKY...
      • Konstantino, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Since when was Canada free from American news media? I'm Canadian, and I should know -- it's more than half of our OWN news.
        • skyteria, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3There's a huge difference between American and Canadian news. American news is incredibly fear-mongering, the "do you know where you kids are" type. Plus the commercials are full of boring minute long drug ads. I wish we could export CBC to the States so they can see what a real news channel is supposed to be. Instead of minute by minute updates on Paris Hilton, CBC has incredible news-documentaries.
          • Corvidae, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The BBC is broadcast across most of America. Their news (or anyone else's) will never have a bigger following than a US station. In the case of the BBC, they have english accents and the news is centered around the UK or the rest of the world. Stereotypical Americans (TV viewers) don't like foreign accents and don't want to hear about the rest of the world.

            Yeah, it's really sad, but it's also the truth for a large portion of our population. As an example, a lot of the people who want us out of Iraq, could care less about the troops, the Iraqis or terrorists. They just don't want to hear about it anymore. That's why it's best not to pick on your support base for most movements in the US. They aren't really motivated, they just want you to go away.
    • donelson, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3Wiki-pedia = Wiki-vandalize-me-anytime
      • Konstantino, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13I'm sure that sounded more clever in your head.
    • narc, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7What's wrong with this video ? Fox says that wikipedia is a largely used tool, that companies including them modify the articles but that it stays accurate because of the user community. If CNN said exactly the same thing you'd be praising ... Not that Fox news is not a ***** channel but this video isn't in any way relevant of its *****.
      • jdenzer, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6And that is what is wrong w/ this country. People like you who can't see the obvious and look past the BS. You really can't see how they try to discredit Wikipedia and Wikipedia scanner. Sad, just sad.
        • narc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I'm not from the US.
        • jstohler, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4You don't have to live in this country to be a citizen of Idiot America.
      • aerogant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Fox has it backwards, at least from my experience with Wikipedia, it is very hard to change content even when you know something is wrong! I tried to correct an article that referred to something as a myth, but some self proclaimed expert who only read a few books about the subject kept re-adding it. And I tried to search the web to find some other source that would show that he was mistaken, but when I searched the web, I found several duplications of the wikipedia page as if it were fact. Finally after some time the expert decided to read up more on it and found that he was mistaken, but the way he corrected the text could have been better and I didn't want to go back and forth editing the page again with him. But after this I don't trust wikipedia quite as much as I did in the past, especially when personal experience contradicts what is on those pages!!!
    • NJHiker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It looks like someone is a Bob Grant fan.
    • supaklaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Um, Fox News sucks? We knew this already? Rednecks watch it and believe it. They got busted, lied about it... I'm sure they'll stay clear of it from now on and just label it "Liberal Press" or "Liberal Blog" or something biased, partisan and retarded. Not really news, buried as "lame".
  • nascarthunder, on 10/10/2007, -12/+185How can anyone continue to watch this "news" channel that is full of nothing but lies and hatred? No matter what side of the aisle you stand, democrat or republican, you can not deny the lies, propaganda and bias that Fox News spreads.

    So here is an honest question:

    For you diggers out there who watch Fox News, why do you continue to watch a channel with such lies and bias?

    I’m honestly interested in seeing what people have to say in defense of Faux News.
    • Borramakot, on 10/10/2007, -46/+10Im ashamed to say it, but I watch Fox News. I dont find it a good source of news, but Im becoming obsessive over Ron Paul, and I figure the republican channel is the best place to hear what MSM is saying about him.

      I apologise.
      • dallascorbin504, on 10/10/2007, -1/+51Trust me, The republicans hate RP more than the Democrats want to defeat him. He is not what most people think of when you say republican. But truth be told, his values are more republican than the rest of the field. Small Government, a non-intervention foreign policy, and true liberty for all Americans.

        Bottom line....RP is not a good reason to waste your brain by watching Fake news. They are neo-cons! not republicans.
        • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Don't forget Pro Life. Unlike Romney and Guiliani. Heck he so pro life he wants a constitutional amendment to define life and personhood at conception.
        • UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7To prove your point, you must also denounce CNN and MSNBC. PBS seemed to be, for awhile, the only credib;e source to get non-bias new. Now, even they seem to be left-leaning (although, to be fair, the world seems to be left leaning, in and of itself, nowadays).

          I thought the fact that they mentioned themselves was pretty cool. I disagree with most Fox News propoganda, but that, actually, seemed pretty fair.

          Maybe it is just me...
          • Swift2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It's true, other news stations, and institutions, have been monkeying around with the stories. However, and this is the crucial point here, the whole Fox story is a) Wikipedia's a crazy thing for crazy dirty hippies, b) a lot of the world's institutions, like (everything but Fox) does some creative editing. Oh, and 3. Fox has done it too. No examples, shmucks.

            I think they (and maybe the NYT and the Vatican too, I don't know) owe the world an apology.

            It's great that there's a tool now that makes you able to really, really track the changes.
      • labmouse42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3In today's US political climate, republican =! conservative.
        Ron Paul stands for ideals that most republicans will never agree with.
        • DavidYeah, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Will he continue the selling off functions of our government to corporations? His anti-government libertarian-esque stance seems to imply his views would put us in the hands of profit interests.
        • bhank21, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1ron paul is a republican of the old order. not like the current crop of moronic "republicans". he adheres, seemingly, to the core original core ideas of the republican party. but let's not forget that he is a politician. he may change should he get elected.
        • Pssdoff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Neoconservatives are Fauxpublicans
          A balanced, conservative budget is the furthest thing from their agendas.
        • CZzyzx41, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Right like being Pro-Life, against stem cell research, anti-gay adoption, voted to abolish the Department of Education, voted against the AMBER alert system, wants to make it easier for citizens to carry hidden firearms, wants to make it easier to purchase firearms and is very anti-immigrant. All of these are obviously NOT things "the current crop of moronic 'republicans'" would be likely to agree with.
    • XISUPERMANIX, on 10/10/2007, -7/+110I watch it because it is the best comedy on tv.
      • DLgelfin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Yes...this is true. The morning show Fox and Friends with those two guys is absolutely unintentionally hilarious sometimes
    • PrettyLadyGrace, on 10/10/2007, -82/+5I watch it because it's better than the Communist News Network
      • futuretense, on 10/10/2007, -9/+35you eat dog ***** rather than maggot soup. brilliant
      • vanbacon, on 10/10/2007, -6/+27Are you hi on weed man The Communist where defeated by the giant Zuchinni from pluto that made the Russians ***** their pants. And that is how The battle for middle Earth was won. With spatulas and Angry goblins with Proton packs filled with mustard.
        • Sp00k, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17Ridiculous... utterly ridiculous. Only on the internet could you see such mindless drivel.

          Everyone knows they were filled with ketchup, not mustard.
      • labmouse42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4@LadyGrace
        Name calling stopped giving you credit after grade school.
        If you wish to get more diggs, I suggest growing up.
      • diggbot7, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3CNN? Even that is pretty right-wing. Are you completely nuts?
      • diggbot7, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2CNN? Even that is pretty right-wing. Are you completely nuts?
      • floatingpoints, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That doesn't even make any sense.

        Did you hear one of your friends say that recently and you had a whim to try it out or something?
      • rootofunity, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1@LadyGrace Aside from the fact that your statement was not only an uneducated and poor analysis of news and media but that seems to be the norm of Fox advocates you know the whole world is left wing biased except for Fox News, the Post and any other media owned by Rupert Murdoch then again the average of this country is really dead center which is left of the Fox Propaganda machine but that's a matter of relativity but anyway.

        Can you define what a communist is? Moreover, what is the difference between a communist and a socialist? Honestly instead of spitting out stupid statements that have no meaning or substance aside from a direct attach lets here a valid argument explaining your stance??
      • Jareth86, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Are you kidding me? CNN is pretty far right...
    • MrARPA, on 10/10/2007, -4/+34I watch it in the UK over an unofficial Internet stream. It's rather like reading a tabloid newspaper, you know it's basically right-wing rubbish, but there is a sort of entertainment value to it.
      • kazamx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12you know we get it on Sky?

        I remember watching that O'reily show once late at night and thinking it was a great satire. I had never heard of Fox other than in the Simpsons and thought it was a comedy network. I was horrified when I went online and found out this is what many Amricans think is news.
        • MrARPA, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Nope, I didn't know that. I don't have Sky, and have never really looked in detail at their packages. It's a free stream and I just have it running in the background while I'm messing around on my PC.
        • SweetMercury, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Try living here and having to argue politics with people who think this is news...
    • funkyjunk3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8I don't watch it for its news value. Its more like a daytime drama than anything else.
    • maddhopps10, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13I tune in for the Half Hour News Hour and stay for Greta van Susteren's lovely smile.

      I'm also curious to see whether conservatives will EVER have a reasonable argument for being pro-Bush, pro-Oil, or pro-Terrorism (which is inherent in being pro-Bush or pro-Oil).
      • elleanee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2i hope you're kidding about greta van susteren. what a miskite!!
      • ccheath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You did hear that the HHNH got cancelled, right?
    • bossfrog, on 10/10/2007, -47/+5You've got to be ***** kidding me! Are you trying to claim that CNN doesn't have a LIB bias? It's hilarious how the lefties always get so out of whack that a news network exists that doesn't subscribe to the traditional extreme left tilt.
      • Lionhart, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Have you ever even watched Lou Dobbs?
      • Bhima, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19I'm not going to claim anything but I will make the observation that CNN does not have an "LIB bias" or "extreme left tilt".

        I would suggest that your television experience is so extremely conservative biased that centrist mainstream America *appears* leftist to your view.
        • StGhurka, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3I'll grant you that CNN doesn't have and "extreme" left tilt, but to people like me, who come from the right side of the aisle, it clearly seems to list the left.

          Fox News is certainly biased, but if you don't recognize CNN's leanings, then maybe YOUR television experience lacks a little balance.
          • Dewhead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Everyone, including the media is biased. A good journalist will report objectively. The problem is that there are very few good journalists.
      • goldpress, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Honestly, I've never claimed that any news network was perfect. All are tilted a little. Fox News tilted so far to the right that they fell off their rocker years ago. And before you claim left wing bias, I'm very independent. I've voted both ways in the past. I voted for Bush in the past - which shows we all make mistakes. It simply comes down to the fact that you get nothing for watching anything that is far right or far left on any view point. Wasn't fair and balanced one of the Fox News trademarks? You don't ever have balance when you're only standing with one leg of your body.
      • labmouse42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Hey boss, there is more than just CNN and FOX. I know its a stretch to go outside the black and white world, but have you ever heard of the BBC or any other news sources?
      • diggbot7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Meanwhile, the rest of the people on the planet consider CNN right-wing, if anything.
      • HypocriteDigg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6You sir are a ***** IDIOT if you think CNN is liberal (or any other mainstream media company).
    • smacksaw, on 10/10/2007, -33/+4I watch it because I am not afraid of bias. I'm not as stupid as everyone else thinks we all are. I can look past the bias, it doesn't affect or corrupt my feeble little mind in any way. In fact, I think most people are capable of handling bias. The people who think we're all susceptible to bias are just elitists. I often say that no one can conceptualise intelligence greater than their own, so if someone is smarter than you are, you can't imagine how that would work. The same goes for this. Just because someone else is susceptible to bias doesn't mean I need them to fight bias for me. I have two ***** eyes to see and two ears to hear, I know FOX is biased just like I know a cop is lying about my speed when he pulls me over or that someone can't get me a better price for something when I'm negotiation. Sometimes you have to take it.

      Which leads us to "Fair and Balanced", something people don't understand. They say that if FOX has a bias, it can't be fair. What they mean by "fair" is that they give both sides a chance to speak. If you ever watch FOX News, whenever they toot their own horn about it, it's before or after giving two ravenous talking heads 90 seconds each to rip each other apart. It is, of course, nothing more than Jerry Springer-esque shock TV. However, that is why I appreciate FOX - people who normally would not get a chance to be heard get a voice and I want to see what they have to say, left or right.

      It even goes back to Bill O'Reilly - you often hear his biggest critics admitting that Bill gives them more time in one show than they get in a month everywhere else, combined. I don't care what Bill says about them before, after or during the interview because I can take what they say and decide for myself.

      FOX is only evil if you're an elitist prick who needs to tell me what I should or should not watch.
      • hotsake, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6My problem with Bill O'Reilly and some hosts on other channels is that they can't ask somebody a question and let them answer without first interrupting. I use O'Reilly as an example because you did, but it's not my intention to single him out. He was interviewing an ex-Marine (I think) the other day about whether the soldier felt reconsidering the draft would be good for the military and for America. Several times, O'Reilly interjected because he felt his guest was dodging questions. Whether this was the case or not, the guest did not have many chances to complete his thoughts. I think a lot of liberal people get bent out of shape with Fox News because many of the hosts hold different viewpoints than they do. I'm not a fan of him myself, but I've agreed with certain things he's said. It's people's raging desire to polarize everything that doesn't fit in their pre-defined space that's a problem. How are we supposed to make progress when one side won't put up with anything the other has to say?
        • smacksaw, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Yet after all of that, you still must admit that's more time than they'd get anywhere else. If not for Bill-O and a lot of the others on FOX, we wouldn't hear them at all. I don't really make a conscious decision to watch/not watch FOX - consciously I don't really like it. But I want to see people interviewed and give their take as best they can and the other 2 networks don't cut it. For an example, I like Olbermann. But he just talks about himself or Bill-O when he could bring on other people who might have something to say. I mean, fine Keith. You're funny. Give someone else a chance at the mic now.
      • aguraki, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3I'm not reading all of this. STFU.
        • smacksaw, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3And that my feeble-minded friend is why cable news is so popular. People such as yourself with the attention span of a gnat and the capacity for comprehension of a jar of mayonnaise.
      • plhearn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You think Fox News is fair and balanced? Are you out of your head?
        • smacksaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you read what I said, THEY (as in FOX) tell you that "Fair and Balanced" is when they bring in a pair of people, one from each side and let them talk.
      • Navicerts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Irony: "I'm not as stupid as everyone else thinks we all are."
      • Navicerts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5So you can take bias into account when you are watching fox news (that sum's up what you said?).

        You also compare fox news to Jerry Springer, this is accurate. I guess some people like that *****, I never watch Jerry Springer, I think it actually makes people dumber :( However, it's not the same thing. People watch this fox that have voting rights, and use them. Perhaps you do not appreciate how dumb the average person is.
        • smacksaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's the exact sort of elitist comment I am talking about. Anyone who is influenced by FOX is already long-gone. Besides, the beauty of a democracy is that even stupid people get to vote. Our elections are not decided by "the base" of either party or hardcore partisans. They're decided by people like myself who are the 10% +/- undecided swing voter. We come to our decision by listening to everything.

          If we just listened to elitists, we'd be leftist partisans and not swing voters.

          PS - on the "stupid/irony" thing there. The word "sums" doesn't have an apostrophe in it. Ever.
    • tsaylor, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10Why do you say this about just fox news, when so many big organizations were found to be tampering with their wikipedia paper trail? To me, this whole wikiscanner episode just shows that everyone's a lying liar.
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3I watch FOX News. But I don't take them seriously, I only watch for entertainment value. I like to see them argue with each other, and I laugh at their extreme bias. It saddens me that someone might take FOX News seriously, though.
      • bdhughes, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3those people scare the crap outta me!! i can't watch hatred and insanity knowing people believe that and that the 'official faux news' viewpoint (fair and balanced' or is thar far-right and imbalanced?) resonates with and validates their way of thinking. or vice versa. really scary.
        • swrlyhrly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I agree with you, It is very uncomfortable for me to watch stuff like that because i have this deep feeling that there are people out there that believe this hatred and bigotry and Fox News just add's to it. Im not saying I hate fox for their views, its the racism and bigotry i cant stand. For example the propaganda they spew out against gays. O'Reilly is horrible for this, for example the segment he had on about the lesbian gangs turning our young girls gay and shooting each other in the streets with their pink pistol's. (Anyone who hasn't seen that look it up on youtube, it's quite comical) It anger's me knowing that this isn't just an opinion/news show for conservative like minded people, but propaganda encouraging hatred for gays or rappers or blog's or anything that doesn't agree with O'Reilly or the Fox News channel's view's.

          To be fair though, that is my nicest way of expressing my opinion about fox news.
    • Herolint, on 10/10/2007, -16/+7Yes. Fox News has a conservative bias. It caters to conservatives. CNN on the other hand has a liberal bias and caters to people like you, I suppose. There are other channels catering to different points of view as well.

      There is nothing wrong with conservatives having the views they have and yes, they think liberals are a stupid and illogical as all you liberals seem to think they are. Why is this news?
      • barc0001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Because Fox tells everyone constantly that they DON'T have a bias. They're a news organization who says they have no bias "We report, you decide" and "Fair and Balanced". Sound familiar? But they do have a bias, and that makes them LIARS. And if they LIE about something so fundamental, how can we believe them about anything? And when they are caught posting more LIES on Wikipedia, and erasing things that are true about them, but cast them in a negative light, it's just further proof that they're bastards and you can't trust a goddamn word they say. It's getting so bad with Faux News that if they had a report on water being wet, I'd get up and go to the kitchen sink for a second opinion.
      • Plinkotic, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4It has a liberal bias, but it's so ***** inept and ignorant of what's going on. Some of the hosts are just retarded, as evidenced regularly. Whereas FoxNews lies, CNN ignores. The way Crook&Liars ignores democrats. Or Freepers/neocons ignore, well... the majority of reality. Not a popular sentiment, but sorely true.

        They both ***** suck. The Holy Goldwater should kick their ass.
      • labmouse42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Why do the FOX fanatics always bring up CNN in their defense of republican bias?
        • ccheath, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1ted turner started it and he's a big lib... at least that's the only explanation that makes sense
      • rootofunity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@Herolnt and ccheath According to a study done on both Special Report with Brit Hume on Fox News and CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports. A study was done that just tallied up the partisan guests on the show during a 5 month period. On special report 50 of the 56 Partisan guests on Special Report were conservative that's 89%. Out of the 67 Partisan guests on CNN's Wolf Blitzer 38 were conservative and 29 were liberal. That's 57% were conservative. Looking directly t the numbers as labmouse points out CNN has a little conservative bias but they are much more FAIR AND BALANCED I dint watch either CNN or Fox news i prefer reading NY Times and the Wall Street Journal for my FAIR AND BALANCED mix but anyway try that one out for size So nstead of spitting out stupid lines try to counter that argument. Here's the source http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1072
    • rmeddy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Dude its awesome to watch Fox news ,its such great entertainment once you don't blur the lines between reality and fake yourself and you are aware that they are full of ***** most of the time, and people who hate it watch them and they get their rating so its a win win for them.
    • Sware, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I only watch one decent show on Fox News, It's called Hannity and Colmes. It's actually good, other than that. I don't like Sean Hannity that much, but Alan Colmes is pretty good. He also has a radio talk show during the day.
      • Bahimiron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Man, you're not supposed to capitalize alan combes name. In a Gorean BDSM relationship, only the dom or the 'master', in this case Sean Hannity, gets to capitalize his name. As property, alan does not get that right.
      • 93ex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So does Hannity.
    • lokai, on 10/10/2007, -4/+23I am a devoted viewer of Fox News because I feel that it presents today's most important issues in an unbiased, highly professional manner. I've a feeling that the vast majority of Diggers have never even watched Fox News for themselves and have become blinded by the internet propaganda machine. Fox News exists to make sure that the entire truth gets out to the American public.

      Or perhaps I've gotten that back asswards.
      • diggbot7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Oh. My. God.
      • tblasko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I see what you did there
      • floatingpoints, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Haha, I don't know if you're joking or being sarcastic.

        Well done!
      • daytripperOz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Mmmm... internet propaganda machine.... *drool*
    • mwrl, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2I prefer to support Pro-American views in television and other media outlets these days are very anti-American. I suppose if you are blind to the truth and believe what the media tells you (aka the Bush Haters) then you might believe what you see on FNC as false, but your intelligence is failing yourself. Open your eyes and see that you are being lied to by the left. When CNN gets around to showing the real evil people of the world like Putin, then we can talk.
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7While I won't defend either side of the MSM, your viewpoint looks to be an us VS them viewpoint. Your Pro-American / Anti-American labels are completely wrong. How about Pro-Reality VS Lies or Spin? You have to check several sources of information and then decide for yourself.

        But let me get back to your Pro-American / Anti-American labels. I read that to mean that anyone showing dissent is anti-American in your eyes. That is classic authority worship. Read some history of our Founding Fathers. I'm pretty sure you can't call them anti-American. They were all about dissent. Look into it.
      • deadmann, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You are anti-American.
      • Pssdoff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why is the TRUTH Anti-American?
      • SweetMercury, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@mwrl:
        "if you are blind to the truth and believe what the media tells you"

        And what, FOX News ISN'T part of the media now?
    • deadmann, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4If you're going to watch American media you have to watch both sides.
      • fictionalOne, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I agree. I watch Fox News so that I can be aware of what the other half of our nation believes. How can you successfully win a debate with them when you don't know both sides. Plus, O'Reilly is such a great comedy show!
      • StrangeFamous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7That's what they want you to think.. that there's an invisible line between everyone and you HAVE to choose a side.

        This is nothing more than a method to divide the country even further. It prevents reasonable politicians from being elected, because when it's "us vs. them" nobody wants to compromise or negotiate any more. You have to take a severe stance on every single controversial issue if you truly want to get nominated.

        It's all about waging political war against the other side, instead of helping the country grow and evolve it's laws and legislation.

        I agree that it's important to get a well-rounded view of the news, but nowadays everything's so clouded by the idea of "taking sides" that there is very little news left that isn't designed to sway the public's opinion one way or another, regardless of whether or not the news is accurate.
        • madjeff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Excellent comment! It's this whole "Us vs Them" attitude that is tearing this country apart, and sometimes I feel like I'm the only one that can see it. =)
      • diggbot7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Both sides to what?? Realty and... fantasy?
      • deadmann, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So you can piece together what the actual story is.
    • JimmyIkon, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1"No matter what side of the aisle you stand, democrat or republican, you can not deny the lies, propaganda and bias that Fox News spreads."
      Your statement is full of falicices, often used in propaganda. I can spot False Dilemma and bandwagon in just one statment. If I say "i can deny" then that would mean i'm wrong by definition. So think before you type you hypocritical asshole (that last one was ad hominem)
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1When Oreilly tells people things that are factually incorrect as a means to win an argument, because they cant be verified on camera then and there... I can't help but wonder.

        When secret memos leak out of Fox News on how they're going to spin either a Republican disadvantage, or a Democrat advantage... I can't help but wonder.

        When commentary on fox news accuses Bill Clinton of being responsible for 911, even though George Bush was in office for about a year, was warned numerous times, and was handed a report "BinLaden Determined To blow Up World Trade Center"...

        I can't help but wonder if there isn't some sort of spin, in the no spin zone.
    • ubuntuedgy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I used to watch it, but it has been about 1.5 to 2 years since I have turned it on. I came to my senses. They truly disgust me now.
    • FutureGuy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3it sould be called Fox SiFi Channel, or Fox ***** Channel, or better still Fox UMustBeAMoronToWatchThis Channel
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1"How can anyone continue to watch this "news" channel"

      Well, to be fair, you read Digg. So you shouldn't criticize. Digg is a much poorer source of news than even Fox News.
    • mikhon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0entertainment
    • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"For you diggers out there who watch Fox News, why do you continue to watch a channel with such lies and bias?"

      Look how many diggers read and follow rawstory.com. Are you going to tell me that's any different? Some people only hear what they want to hear and can't handle anything else. So before you pat yourself on the back for posing a rhetorical question, realize the website you are on has some of the worst liberal bias on the internet.
    • iDragonFly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I avoid that channel like the plague.

      However, it seems that wherever I go, public places that have waiting rooms with televisions most always have it on.
      Why the hell is that?

      I end up grumbling like a crazy person after about 15 minutes ... ok, 10 ... 5 minutes of being subjected to the propaganda flying out of the screen and all those pasty puff balls with their talking points.
      • pegasusdba, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes, like the movie, 1984, where a tv is in every room, blasting out the government propaganda...
    • katie212, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It's kind of like watching wrestling....You KNOW it's fake (FAUX) , but it has a laughable idiot value to it. Kind of like when you go to the Zoo...and want to go and watch the monkeys first, such as is watching Bill or Hannity..etc....
      • daytripperOz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Hey, monkeys aren't idiots...
        If I had a choice of living in western society with all the ***** that gets thrown around masquerading as "information" or living in a jungle eating fruit and copulating several times a day I know which one I'd pick.
        Monkey's aren't stupid - they're lucky.
  • andrewmcintyre, on 10/10/2007, -20/+6So typical. Lets dig this embarrassment to the top, lest the real embarrassment be on us for not holding this blatantly partisan network accountable for their spinning and lies.
    • ThePixelator, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10yeah, since we all know digging something to the front page will actually make a difference...
    • 1337d0Od, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3like zebras
  • supyonamesjosh, on 10/10/2007, -28/+3The Google ads on the right side of the page are for Libs and the Amazon ads are for Anime...

    Hmmm...
    *burns Anime collection*
  • dallascorbin504, on 10/10/2007, -11/+51How can anyone bare to watch racist people like sean hannity and bill orally? They are not journalists! they are spin doctors who cant wait for their turn to suck some executive branch *****. as a matter of fact, ***** the entire MSM.
    • borninda818, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6CNN isn't too bad...CBS isn't horrible either
      • bossfrog, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3CNN is HORRIBLE. They STILL worship at the altar of all that is Klinton.
        • Bhima, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5See? This is sort of thing that I was referring to.

          The rest of America watches CNN and they don't see altars, they don't see worshiping all that is anything, much less the misspelling of last name of a former US President and current junior Senator from New York.
    • heliox, on 10/10/2007, -13/+7They host OPINION shows. As does, Rush, Olbermann, Fraken etc. If you think they are trying to pass themselves off as journalists, you are not too bright. Do you think the comics and opinion section is news?
      • hipnerd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Who on Fox isn't hosting an opinion show? Every major "personality" they have is an administration apologist. John Gibson, Britt Hume, Chris Wallace -- all of them.

        Give me the name of one "fair and balanced" journalist on Fox.
        • UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3They are "fair and balanced" because almost all of the rest of the media is liberal and they counter that.

          I do not support their views, but I will fight unto death, their right to air them. If the majority is dumb enough to believe this crap, then let them. The main problem is that the majority disagrees and we, still, seem to have no voice.

          They have shown us that politics no longer have value. Unless Gravel, Kucinich or Paul get into office; it shows how powerless we are.

          Ballots or bullets, people. It is time to take this country back...

          Hey, look, the CIA is at my door. I better answer it, this might be important...
          • Bhima, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I would suggest that mainstream USA is centrist. I would also suggest that many people think they are so Conservative that the whole of the world, save Faux News and their ilk, appears to be liberal. However I am sure if they ever cataloged their view of the various political issues in America they would find that they are not.

            I don't understand why you bring up "fighting to the death"... this is silly hyperbole. Little of what Faux News broadcasts is both protected speech and fact. In fact I'm sure they have many lawyers educating their presenters as to the boundaries between regular speech and forbidden speech (like Libel and Slander)
          • labmouse42, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1"They are "fair and balanced" because almost all of the rest of the media is liberal and they counter that. "

            Just like Dark Vader brought balance to the force.
    • OHaloThar, on 10/10/2007, -15/+1Get me one racist comment from Bill O'reilly, just one, and I will throw my laptop out the window, and give pics.
      • beatmonger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13"We'd save lives because Mexican wetbacks, whatever you want to call them, the coyotes, they're not going to do what they're doing now, so people aren't going to die in the desert,"

        "The most unattractive women in the world are probably in the Muslim countries."

        http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1147
        http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200302%5CNAT20030212b.html

        Looking forward to the pics
        • Azio, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Yes, I too am wondering where the pics are
        • siszam, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I can't stand Bill. To be fair though, my husband and his family are Hispanic. Some of them work for border patrol. They all call illegals wetbacks. There is a difference between Hispanics and wetbacks. A person is not called wetback because of their race. They are called that because they illegally enter the country. So unless you want to defend illegals or claim that my Hispanic family is somehow racist against Hispanics then you're wrong to say assume wetback is a racist remark.
        • fictionalOne, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I'm a hispanic, born in USA, and do not use the term wetback. Oh, I also grew up in a border town. To know that there are other hispanics using this term is disgusting. Like it or not, you or your ancestors were once considered "wetbacks." You and your family are racists if you continue to use that word!
      • ReturnToFreedom, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Hmm, for some reason OHaloThar has mysteriously stopped responding to comments. Hmm, I wonder why?
        • SuperCow1127, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Duh. He threw his laptop out the window.
    • jaxcs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Does this really answer anything? Are all opinions equal? Shouldn't opinions be based on facts and not themselves be part of the spin? There is a conscious effort to misinform you and you cheer it on.
      • UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I would Digg you up a million times, if I could, jax.

        Maybe, when people elect the hypocrats and see no real change, they will see the truth... I doubt it.
  • Kinkistyle, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8Follows the same old Rovian pattern of the Bush Administration and its mouthpiece, the FAUXNEWS network we've seen time and time again: if the messenger delivers a message that is truthful and makes themselves look bad, then attack the messenger's credentials viciously regardless of the validity of the message.
  • Daunting, on 10/10/2007, -11/+44I think I speak for everyone when I say, ***** FAUX NEWS!!!
    • netkid91, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Nice joke, but fox and faux are pronounced differently....kinda ruining it...
      /Useless post
    • FiP0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah, "faux" is pronounced like "foe" in english... nice try anyway :)
      • labmouse42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think thats the point.

        If one thinks that Fox news is your friend, and not their foe, then I have a bridge to sell.
    • JimmyIkon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1You don't speak for me, so shut the F@#$ up.!
      • Zatechz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Oh Stan, we really need to do something about all that sand in your vagina. Does it itch?
        • daytripperOz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It certainly looks itchy. All red and a little crusty too.

          Sand - it's a fkkn scourge.
  • iffi, on 10/10/2007, -15/+0geenga lala ho
  • TroubleInMind, on 10/10/2007, -13/+39LEELOO DALLAS MULTIPASS
    • 1337d0Od, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15why are people digging this guy down, that movie is badass
      • Derrekito, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8still... it is not a constructive comment.
      • halavais, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2It's digg, where constructive comments, are the norm.

        (Not.)
    • bonerjams2k3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Dugg for kickass reference.
    • UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I know Leeloo and Dallas were from 5th element, but what is the Multipass? I know, I must be a noob.
    • boejangles, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1LMAO so F'n random.
      Yeah she displayed her multipass at the airport.
  • Proctor, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1Watch Alexa for the drop in Wikipedia's traffic due to Fox News spewing *****.
    • bjweeks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Um, Wikipedia still has millions of untouched articles that serve their purpose. Plus, the admins are good at stopping this *****.
      • Proctor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Fox News just ***** on Wikipedia. How many Fox News viewers are there?
  • Proctor, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2Also: http://digg.com/politics/Digg_Fox_News_Show_Your_Hate
  • G5Unit91, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5I love how the Fox News Channel controversies wiki article is longer then the actual Fox news article.
  • 1337d0Od, on 10/10/2007, -15/+1you guys know the governmetn is forcing them to report all that stuff right?
    • bjweeks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6No I didn't but now that a guy on the internet named '1334d0Od' told me I know it is true!
    • pakkman781, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5With that screen-name, you cannot be doubted.
    • kaldrenon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Oh noes, da gummint makin' me do scurreh stuff, gon' make me r'port nooz!
  • EugineMW, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13I myself loved to watch Fox News. Thanks to you Digg, I have lost all thrust in this news network. I'll get all my news online from now on.
    • NeoRebellion, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Yes, because we know the most reliable news comes from an old man in his basement.
      • UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It, absolutely, does.

        He has no party lines to toe and he has nothing to lose. Allah bless this old, basement man.
      • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If you want to listen to the opinions of an old man in his basement, Michael Savage is your man. If you want news with objective sources, start with Kos and branch out from there.
      • 0gleth0rpe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Oh, he wishes he'd be in his own basement. He sometimes pretend, that it is indeed "his" basement. But really, the basement belongs to his mother.
  • r1y23, on 10/10/2007, -6/+24This reminds me so much of that news station in "V for Vendetta". Its creepy that Fox News has made it to that level.
    • netkid91, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hmmm....so maybe the movie wasn't set in Britan after all....
      • cruzlee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Hmmm... maybe the Brits tried to make a point about another country...
    • don1one, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The really creepy thing is that so many people continue to watch Faux News. Though the demographic is mostly old people and probably southerners.
  • drakethegreat, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Ya now the website thats edited by people all over the world is the problem, not the people editing it... How original...
  • 1337d0Od, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1oh wait who is tony "whoop-de-doo" blair, I read about him on Wikipedia, because we all know the hardworking wikians do nothing to correct changes in a matter of seconds.
    • bjweeks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6You bash people for making something the best they can? I'd love to see you do it better.
    • 1337d0Od, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1i guess i was wrong when i thought my sarcastic tone was obvious...
  • smurf22, on 10/10/2007, -11/+29Even though I dont like FOX news, FAUX isnt witty or funny.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Especially since it's actually pronounced like "phoe".
      • MalenfantX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2The joke is written, not spoken.

        Still, I prefer Fox Opinion Channel, since that's factual without being childish.
        • don1one, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Faux is a pretty standard misspelling. And I think more accurate. Fake news reported as fact.

          Although I will say one thing, Shep tries hard to point out bias from either side. He's called out Brit and Cavuto on propaganda
    • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3ok, how about fox noise?
    • sensical, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How about *****' Yous?
    • mwrl, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1If you have the wit of a walnut then it is funny ;)
      • jitterbits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yes, but unfortunately, walnuts aren't known for being terribly witty or discriminating.
    • bsmang, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I think "Fox Views" works well and is quite accurate.
    • Cerpin_Taxt, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I can speak French, and I find that pun to be incredibly annoying. A person who cannot speak French will undoubtedly say "fox", but the rest of us will say faux, killing it.

      Add that to the fact that I see "FAUX NEWS: FASCIST PROPAGANDA NETWORK" multiple times per day on Digg. I hate it.
    • elleanee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2fux news works for me.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1CNN calls them the F-Word Network.
  • mushoo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+22Embarrassed? I have never seen any of the Fox "News" assholes show anything resembling anything nearing embarrassment. Just look at Chris Wallace, smarmy *****, the ***** looks like he took smirking classes from Dick Cheney.
  • in2deep, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Interesting article...enjoyed it!
  • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6I just love how NYT's, BBC's, & the DNC's ***** up edits get a pass from the diggerals around here. ZOMG FOX NEWZ!
    • h3llscaper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Did you really just use "diggeral" in a serious manner?
    • number5, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2well they didn't run a story talking about how wikipedia cant be trusted, and is full of lies
    • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I love how you think that all the changes made are all equivalently bad.
  • Bubbaboy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Now, if only Fox News reporter David Lee Miller could pronounce the word "wikipedia"...
  • NeoRebellion, on 10/10/2007, -14/+10This is not true. It's a vast left wing conspiracy.
    • Derrekito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7/sarcasm?
    • DavidYeah, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1there is no left wing conspiracy, but we're working on it.
    • JimmyIkon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The left can't even get out of bed in the morning. How can you expect them to organize a conspiracy.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The far left is doped out on hemp, the far right is doped out on Jesus juice
  • ijak, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3You, in your own effort of propaganda, forgot to report that the Vatican, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and others did the same thing. ... You try to make it Fox. ... It is all reporters, even the liberals. ... Maybe even you. ...
    • toddcat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2FAUX claims to be fair and balanced when they're obviously not. They make themselves targets.
  • Compared2What, on 10/10/2007, -11/+7What no mention of all the other major media outlets that did the same? Must be more DIggBott one-sided reporting (Propaganda)
    • toddcat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The other networks don't claim to be fair and balanced when nothing could be further from the truth.
    • Arkons24, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1did you even watch the video or are you just stupid? That piece was fine. You guys jump all over things just based on the material it covers. It is like "oh fox news made a report about wikipedia when it edits its own entries, that must mean the piece is attempting to discredit wikipedia to save face." Are you kidding me? That was the most fair and balanced report I've ever seen on Fox News. It was clean as can be.
  • nickmv, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10WOW, just......WOW......I hope CNN or some other network reports about FNC reporting that after editing wikipedia themselves. What a bunch of *****
    • UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What does Warcraft have to do with any of this?

      /distracted, simple-mindedness
  • RlAA, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Uploaded it to youtube in case anyone wants it

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee3tUnuTAsk
  • whiskeysquared, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14Anyone with an ounce of brain matter understands Fox News is nothing but a propaganda channel, full of idiot talking heads, spreading their vile, convoluted opinions to a fan base of wal-mart shopping, sweat pants wearing, chain smoking, backwoods jack asses. So here's the question: In this new age of movements, why hasn't every news making persona stopped accepting interviews at fox? Seriously, why would any self-respecting individual want to be seen on the same screen as some of these idiots? Sooner or later they're going to lose ad profits and because we know they're money whores, they'll have to change their game strategy. Just a thought.
    • OHaloThar, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Are they convoluted opinions because they don't match your own?
      • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No they're convoluted because they don't make logical sense.
    • bossfrog, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Because they're not far left extremist wackos.
      • gwalms, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4So Fox is centrist now? Where are you from?
    • labmouse42, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3There is my theory as to why people still watch fox : Sheep
    • DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4you forgot nascar and wrestling.
  • Timetheos, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4It's not Fox News, but Fox Opinion.
    • JoeRW, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Fox Opinion spoken as fact and backed up with threats of blacklist, insult and character assassination.
  • halavais, on 10/10/2007, -5/+32I am not a fan of Fox News, but did you actually watch the story:

    1. They admit that people coming from Fox IPs, among other media outlets, made changes to Wikipedia.

    2. They end the story with a quote suggesting that the fact that the changes were reverted demonstrates that Wikipedia is a fairly solid reference.

    Sorry, but I think the story was actually [shudder!] pretty fair and balanced.
    • gwalms, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Did they do anything about those from Fox who edited wikipedia?
      • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1They should fire them for not working, just like anyone else that messes around on Wiki or digg while at work and not on a break.
    • IlJaanevits, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well they were F&B in a way that they admitted they are in it too...but the whole story until that point was pretty much anything but F&B. The way they mentioned those other companies seemed like the original FN story. And in the end, yeah, they said wikipedia gets checked pretty often, so it is infact a decent source for information...but being used to their normal style of reporting, this to me seemed exactly like CNN's report of SiCKO, the one with Gupta.
      So, if those 2 things they said made you feel that story was fair and balanced..why didn't it sound like that? And if they think of wikipedia as a fairly solid reference, why did they even make the story? They made it before any other news channel just to secure themselves from accusations...they are professionals so they did it in their own way bashing some other organisations before mentioning they are in it too. "..and you guessed it, Fox News have done it too"
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah they preempted being called on the practice.

        Now it's old news and nobody cares.
    • 0gleth0rpe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Damage Control
  • sleeknerve, on 10/10/2007, -6/+18Why are you guys all mad, i saw nothing wrong with this segment, they admitted that they were one of the crooks too, they could have not reported it or even lied, they totally told the truth, if this was CNN, it would have been fine with u guys
    • gwalms, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Fox should do something about those in their company who made these edits. If CNN did this, they wouldn't be off the hook either.
      • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1They should fire them for not working, just like anyone else that messes around on Wiki or digg while at work and not on a break.
    • toddcat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Again, FAUX is a joke. They claim to be fair and balanced when they're the worst propagandists. They set themselves up for ridicule.
      • plhearn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2While that may be true most of the time it wasn't the case in this segment. Did you even watch the clip?
    • IlJaanevits, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Well they were F&B in a way that they admitted they are in it too...but the whole story until that point was pretty much anything but F&B. The way they mentioned those other companies seemed like the original FN story. And in the end, yeah, they said wikipedia gets checked pretty often, so it is in fact a decent source for information...but being used to their normal style of reporting, this to me seemed exactly like CNN's report of SiCKO, the one with Gupta. So, if those 2 things they said made you feel that story was fair and balanced..why didn't it sound like that? And if they think of wikipedia as a fairly solid reference, why did they even make the story? They made it before any other news channel just to secure themselves from accusations...they are professionals so they did it in their own way bashing some other organizations before mentioning they are in it too. "..and you guessed it, Fox News have done it too"
    • Pfhreak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2"Why are you guys all mad," They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and then tried to blame the cookie jar because it could be opened. "i saw nothing wrong with this segment, they admitted that they were one of the crooks too," We're supposed to give them a pass because they admitted to violating Wikipedia's NPOV requirement? It's a news station, they're supposed to report facts and expose the truth, not manipulate sources of fact. "they could have not reported it or even lied, they totally told the truth," Again, it's supposedly a news station, they're supposed to tell the truth. I'm not going to give someone kudos for doing something that's a fundamental part of their job. "if this was CNN, it would have been fine with u guys" That's just a tu quoque. Here's a hint: two wrongs don't make a right, especially when one of the wrongs is just in your head. For the record, I wouldn't have fine with CNN, or anyone, doing this. Wikipedia has very clear guidelines about NPOV, and editing your own article is a blatant violation of such.
  • consonance, on 10/10/2007, -2/+28Did anyone actually watch the video clip? It was highly informative, and the spin that was present was not prevalent but still noticeable. Despite the slight bias, the story actually got the facts right and presented a succinct summary of the situation. I'd even say that was a good piece of journalism. Notice that the reporter wasn't Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, or Neil Cavuto; it was written by a man named David Lee Miller. If you can ignore the positive portrayal of Fox, it's not bad.

    People say that Fox News is criticizing Wikipedia here, but it's not. If so, why would they present a statement saying that Wikipedia would come out stronger because the wrongful edits would be removed? Yes, the story is somewhat negative, but it has to be; it's describing the exploits of big business. Saying that the site will come out stronger is an optimistic message that will ultimately provide Wikipedia legitimacy.
    • SaintStryfe, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3it's not their criticisms of Wiki that's the issue here - it's equating that if the NYT/Vatician/ect have done it, then it's ok, and it doesn't matter because they're fixed anyway. Well it's not ok - it's scummy at best and companies that engage in it should be shown for the fakeness they perpetuate.

      In the end, once again, the "Morals" people are being morally relative in a rather clear case where it shouldn't be happening. It should not be.
    • klecu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And notice how (2 years late, though it was) a new tool was created on the wiki platform that allows people to see exactly who changed an article? It wouldn't surprise me if this became an integral part of wikipedia, just to keep things honest.

      Also, I looked at some of the CIA edits (not the others yet) and most were not related to the CIA at all. It seems to me that it's mostly employees using wikipedia during working hours. In which case, employers can use this tool to see just what employees are doing (if they don't already).
    • IlJaanevits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You can say whatever you want in a way you want, making the thing you say sound good, bad, neutral or whatever. There is no doubt this story made negative remarks of wikipedia more than it did good. For Fox News report, it was good, but speaking of neutralism in reporting, this was piece of *****. You must have noticed that old hamburger model of saying bad things with some good things in between. This is what FN does every day. And you must also remember who those viewers are, Bill O'Reilly does this also, but maybe with a little less integrity. CNN does it too, as do all the other medias...but the thing is how often they do it and with what purpose.
      There's absolutely no doubt in my mind this story was made with no good intentions towards wikipedia. Why would have it?
      • Arkons24, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1ummm they were pretty fair towards wikipedia. They presented both sides of the story and even gave wikipedia credit that most self-serving edits got reverted back anyway. I suggest you stop letting your bias blind you. I don't like Fox News, but this was a good story.
  • nazrockz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Tony Blair isn't even the prime minister anymore
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They were referring to the fact that people have been defacing his Wiki bio due to his extreme unpopularity, which was the result of him invading Iraq with George Bush.

      That's also the reason why he's out of a job.
  • Jo9100, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Wallace_%28journalist%29&diff=88023974&oldid=87265579
  • skacr0w, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Yeah, folks. Did most of you watch this, or just read the ***** headline? Stories that are pretty balanced aren't the enemy. Fox News isn't even the enemy. Lies, deceit, greed and headlines like this; that try to sway people before even hearing the issue, are.

    No diggs for a dumb headline and dumb comments.
    • toddcat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I think we got the fact that there were no Diggs for it by your combative dismissal of peoples' attitudes about it. No need to tell us. We're not stupid-well, some of us are I guess...
  • xen0blue, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8let's just forget about that little wikipedia edit the NYT and BBC did earlier this week, shall we?

    Buh...buh...buh..FOX!
    • gwalms, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5That doesn't get Fox off the hook one bit either xen0blue.
    • toddcat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Again, FAUX claims to be fair and balanced. This sets them up to a higher standard-which they fail multiple times on a daily basis.
    • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Nobody's dismissing those edits, they just weren't as extreme and wide spread as the Fox edits.
  • ranthony, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Personally, I prefer Olbermann's epithet, "Fox Noise". As for news content, however, none of the television news channels is worth very much, Fox is just worth less than most.
  • perkbrian, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2It's a damn good thing that my TV is so ***** (awesome) that i cant pick up channel 4 (Fox)
  • smacksaw, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I like that woman from MSNBC in the morning who refused to read the Paris Hilton story. She would have turned this ***** down flat! How moronic that FOX would say Wikipedia is inaccurate, yet it's inaccurate because FOX made it so!
  • Stevejsam, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4wow so the NYT does the same thing but gets a pass? ***** liberals
    • toddcat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Oh those goddamn liberals and their logic.....and the 54% of the country who wishes for W's impeachment. Yep, all liberals....it's all about conservatives and Dems.
  • Bozodog, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7And lies posted on Wikipedia came from Democratic party computers in Washington.

    The Democrats are no better than Fox News.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm
    • klecu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Nice- BBC snitching on DNC. I love this:

      they said that the "IP address is the same as the DCCC".

      Ha ha ha!
    • zardozzzzzz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Let's see, (a) a political organization whose reason of existence getting their people elected and trashing the opponents, and (b) a news organization which is ostensibly "fair and balanced."
      /Apples and oranges much?
      • BoMEpsilon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Does that make one better than the other?
        • jitterbits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yes, actually. Everyone knows you can't trust politicians, but it'd be nice if at least we had the news media on the side of fact.
        • jitterbits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Damn comment system. Hmph.
  • InSectWar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Buh Buh Buh Buh Clinton!!!!!
    • Bozodog, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4What are you saying?
      That selective outrage is OK when committed by a Democrat,
      but not by a Libertarian?
      "Crooks and Liars" IS full of crooks and liars.
      • toddcat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Oh schnap, bozodo got you, insectwar, lol. NOT. It's amazing how conservatives can be wrong about pretty much everything over the last six years-empowering a dickhead President who has the opposite of the Midas touch. Everything he touches turns to *****-and still they think they have some sense. When will you cons realize just how much you have enabled the destruction of peace in our planet?
        • Dewhead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Toddcat,
          Boy are you a misquided fool.
      • floatingpoints, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He's saying Clinton was ***** 8 years ago.

        Get over it and address the current political nightmare.
  • klecu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Umm, how many other media outlets would admit to being part of the problem? The piece wasn't negative at all! They wrapped it up by saying that most inaccurate and self-serving edits are changed back quite quickly.

    Look, it seems that every big company has been guilty of wikipedia edits. It's just a risk taken in Web 2.0. The good news is that there are way more honest, public-minded people on the internet who are willing to take some of their own time and keep wikipedia honest. And thank God for those people.
  • RJBEG, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Fox "News"

    What a great comment.
  • RJBEG, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2*****, anyone with an IQ over a 100 can't possible believe their BS.
    • zcreem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Anyone with an IQ of 100 + doesn't watch this *****.
    • OriginalLucid1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I bet you still believe Dan Rather was telling the truth though, right? How high id your IQ?
      • Dewhead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1originalucid1,
        they believe that Dan rather was set up by the evil Karl Rove and have nightmares that somehow Cheney was involved.
      • hipnerd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Oh I don;t think Rather was intentionally lying (if we're referring to the Bush/AWOL story.) The story was put together by a producer for the show whom Rather had worked with before and trusted. On top of that, the fact that Bush was AWOL from the national guard had already been fairly well established by an excellent investigative series in the Boston Globe that did not use the disputed Killian Documents .

        http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2004/02/05/bushs_guard_service_what_the_record_shows/

        Rather's big sin was in standing up for his producer far longer than he should have. She did not give the papers the scrutiny they deserved and Rather paid the on-air price for her sloppiness. Rather also was (rightly) convinced that the underlying story was true. As pointed out, the Boston Globe had reached the exact same conclusion without the Killian Documents.

        The fact that the documents were being used to discredit the entire story rubbed Rather the wrong way and he fought against what he saw as a coordinated effort to bury the truth with a smear campaign. But by defending the obviously questionable documents instead of the story as a whole, he allowed his own credibility to be eaten away, which was a shame.
  • klecu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Funny how one person calls FNC "hateful" and then someone else starts calling their reporters idiots and such.

    Do you people realize that FNC, as a cable news network, is younger (I believe), yet more popular than CNN and MSNBC?
    • gwalms, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Did you also know that those who watch Fox News are less politically attune than those who watch CNN and MSNBC?
      • Metman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Did you know that passing generalizations and pre-judging makes you look like an arrogant ass?
      • Dewhead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Really? Prove it.
    • toddcat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2And that the average age of Falafel O'Loofah's audience is over 70? Yeah, that's a highly desired demographic. Just scaring and misleading your grandparents and mine.
      • Metman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You can only mislead those who want to be led.
  • Obscenewords, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Fox media is aggressively attacking what they perceive as an unfair and biased liberal media. To make their claims they often exaggerate points in opposition. Journalism is the true victim, due to this high school debate team one ups man-ship mentality. I offer no solutions to this problem, just my understanding and a posture of superiority.
    • klecu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Are you referring to this clip (did you WATCH it?) or to FNC in general? This was not an attack on Wikipedia, though it might seem like it if you just watched the first FIVE SECONDS.
    • HautePie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"one ups man-ship" WTF
  • Proctor, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Ron Paul 2008
    • klecu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Seriously man. I support RP, but come on! Give it a rest. You're hurting the cause more than anything, and I hope RP supporters bury this just so we all stop looking like idiots.
      • pictureDIGGER, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I would like to second that. Please stop with the meaningless posts. I understand your excitement, but this is still digg, not the Ron Paul comment site.
    • toddcat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Your mom, 8-17-07.
  • Obscenewords, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Fox media is aggressively attacking what they perceive as an unfair and biased liberal media. To make their claims they often exaggerate points in opposition. Journalism is the true victim due to this high school debate team one ups man-ship mentality. I offer no solutions to this problem, just my understanding and a posture of superiority.
  • Spudster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I caught Gap doing similar edits to their corporate article (improving Gap's image). I did an IP search and confirmed it. The guy later fessed up by claiming he did the edits on his lunch break.

    Sadly for you conspiracy theorists, there is a very good possibility that someone who works at Fox News was screwing around on their computer making biased Wikipedia edits. I would love to think that Fox news is intentionally making the world a bad place by editing Wikipedia, but in reality, I'm pretty sure it's just some random employee from their HQ with conservative bias. I think this by following Occam's razor which states that the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. What's simpler, a coordinated conspiracy to alter Wikipedia by Fox, or some conservative loser at his desk screwing around on Wikipedia for the lack of anything better to do?

    I mean honestly, how many of us can say we HAVEN'T dicked around reading Wikipedia while at work?
    • klecu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I know I do. I did today. No biased edits though, I promise. I leave the biased comments to liberal and conservative losers.
    • klecu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Hey, my reply got got erased!

      But you're right. It was most likely employees goofing around, and nothing official. Because trust me, that's the last thing any government agency wants to be accused of.
      • Spudster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yeah, with technology that now monitors the IP's of any organization making Wikipedia edits, there is a lot more DAMAGE to come out of making slanted edits than anything else. If there actually was a concerted effort to alter Wikipedia behind-the-scenes, it would not be done so that the IP could be traced back to your head quarters.

        Cmon guys, this is conspiracy planning 101 here!
    • toddcat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You are probably right that it isn't a co-ordinated conspiracy but given FAUX's record of b.s. and smearing and hate-mongering, it's pretty pathetic how overly sensitive they are about their own public image.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.