32
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 154:
Line 154: + + + + + +
Talk:Fox News Channel (view source)
Revision as of 03:43, January 30, 2008
, 03:43, January 30, 2008Now awaiting Fox News retraction. Right.
:::I think as long as the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines]] are followed (particularly #Attribution), there is no reason why we shouldn't have a criticism section. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:16, 29 January 2008 (EST)
:::I think as long as the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines]] are followed (particularly #Attribution), there is no reason why we shouldn't have a criticism section. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:16, 29 January 2008 (EST)
[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/arts/television/26mass.html?_r=7&ref=arts&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login&oref=login This] clear retraction by the author who made the accusation makes the Roger Ailes quote seem pretty empty - "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework."
Also, despite having a commentator who <i>had actually played the game</i> available, Fox chose not to use him in the broadcast. It makes this quote of his fairly hollow-sounding: "Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools.".
Hollow, that is, unless Fox does indeed retract. Which they may. When Hell freezes over. [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 22:43, 29 January 2008 (EST)