FOX NEWS INTERNAL MEMO: "Be On The Lookout For Any Statements From The Iraqi Insurgents...Thrilled At The Prospect Of A Dem Controlled Congress"...

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-_n_34128.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/ap/memo4.jpg

― researching ur life (grady), Thursday, 16 November 2006 02:06 (nineteen years ago)

booyah

― wordy rappaport (EstieButtez1), Thursday, 16 November 2006 04:10 (nineteen years ago)

"The Huffington Post"

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Thursday, 16 November 2006 04:12 (nineteen years ago)

does anyone at fox news know anything about grammar

― webber (webber), Thursday, 16 November 2006 04:24 (nineteen years ago)

"a couple of thumpees"

― researching ur life (grady), Thursday, 16 November 2006 04:29 (nineteen years ago)

that memo was unintelligible.

― a name means a lot just by itself (lfam), Thursday, 16 November 2006 04:30 (nineteen years ago)

That headline is totally dishonest, though, with the ellipses hiding the words "who must be." (There's an obvious difference between "look out for statements from thrilled insurgents" and "look out for statements from insurgents, who by the way are probably thrilled.") The statement would be revealing enough of Fox thinking without butchering it into something it's not -- trading your honesty and credibility for another punch is ... well, the kind of thing we get annoyed with Fox for doing.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 16 November 2006 04:35 (nineteen years ago)

If anything, this thread's headline softens the impact. "Who must be" is so unbelievably contemptuous.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 16 November 2006 06:18 (nineteen years ago)

I dunno, I'm going to go out on a limb and say "look for statements that confirm our viewpoint" is worse journalistic practice than "look out for statements (which I bet will confirm our viewpoint)."

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 16 November 2006 06:29 (nineteen years ago)

The fact that a sketchy eight-months-old blog is the primary source for this makes the whole thing seem a little dubious.

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Thursday, 16 November 2006 06:40 (nineteen years ago)

2005, Curt1s.

But yeah, the fact that this isn't even shocking to us anymore is way worse than the simple news item itself.

― StanM (StanM), Thursday, 16 November 2006 06:55 (nineteen years ago)

I didn't read it like that, regardless of journalistic practice. I read it like "nevermind the many Americans who are thrilled about this election's results ... in fact, lets find some insurgents who are happy about it so that we can show them Dem. supporters are no better."

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 16 November 2006 06:56 (nineteen years ago)

And it isn't a guy in his bedroom typing away either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffington_Post

― StanM (StanM), Thursday, 16 November 2006 06:57 (nineteen years ago)

oops! you're right.

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Thursday, 16 November 2006 07:14 (nineteen years ago)

i think some other media sources have obtained copies. i first heard it on msnbc where they had a copy and were interviewing the creators of "OutFoxed." the huffpost thing was the first version a google search yeilded.

― researching ur life (grady), Thursday, 16 November 2006 09:24 (nineteen years ago)

Is till don't see what the story is? Fox News has a slightly warped world view, news at 11.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 November 2006 09:35 (nineteen years ago)

what does "let's take it/we'll take that too" mean?

― teeny (teeny), Thursday, 16 November 2006 15:36 (nineteen years ago)

i took that to mean - "we'll take that punch to the gut because we have to make some pretense at covering the news"

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 16 November 2006 15:51 (nineteen years ago)

one year passes...

The fact that a sketchy eight-months-old blog is the primary source for this makes the whole thing seem a little dubious.

-- Curt1s St3ph3ns, Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:40 AM (1 year ago) Bookmark Link

― and what, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 20:40 (seventeen years ago)

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q310/valentine0062/SaddamShop.jpg

― J0hn D., Wednesday, 18 June 2008 20:49 (seventeen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.