An embarrassed Fox News hits Wikipedia
By Steve Benen Wednesday Aug 15, 2007 6:49pm
It's been a rough week for our ol' friends at Fox News. Thanks to some IP-address based research, the political world learned that the FNC was responsible for "touching up" Wikipedia pages, editing content that didn't fit with the partisan network's political agenda.
Download | play 
Download | play
For example, embarrassing content from Media Matters about FNC personalities was quietly removed. Criticism of Keith Olbermann and Al Franken was accentuated. The network that specializes in on-air propaganda 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 -- sought to undermine Wikipedia's credibility with a report tonight.
The irony is rich. Pay particular attention to the references to "self-serving agendas" and businesses desperate to "improve their public image."
Fox News tried to exploit Wikipedia, and got caught, so naturally it's time to undermine the source of the network's embarrassment. Typical.
(h/t C&Ler Jerald)
Login or Register to post comments.
One more time.
It's not Fox News.
It's Fox "News".
What's new 95% of the population is sold on whatever you tell them, and 98% sold if the government tells them. So why not keep feeding them Propaganda, they buy we sell what they want.. Democracy at work -----> http://www.YouPolls.com
Fox News: "Does Wikipedia hate America?"
Or:
"Wikipedia (D-Internet)"
When the dems win in 2008 I wonder if we can get some basic truth in advertising legislation to force Fox to at least label itself as Conservative News.
if Wiki is so unreliable, why the hell are they on there trying to gussy up their image?
Faux News. It is simply impossible to underestimate their level of ethics.
Fox is news from the rich to excite the poor.
Oldest game in the book.
FOX news hates, fair and imbalanced.
If you attack they lie and distort and of course, the other news outlets save Olberman report none of the falsehoods and at times they (CNN/MSNBC) echo these lies..
FOX News - GOP Filter
M-m
Sounds like Keith's covering the Wikipedia thing tonight.
Same old same old. They get busted and it's time to smear. Isn't this the same thing this administration does. They hire someone and praise he shit out of them, then when they come clean the call them names and make accusations?
Their next defense is Wiki is run by Soros. Time for Billo to call them Nazis.
Meh. A news channel with a "comedy" show ends up having to cancel said show because it sucked. No one with 2 braincells to rub together takes Wallace, Hannity of O'loufah or anyone on that network seriously.
I love the ending, where they reveal Blair's last name...
Yes, THAT's the lingering question left by this report. Now that we've wrapped up all the loose ends, on to Jenna Bush.
So did Wallace recommend to use Conservapedia instead? :lol:
...And they're only five years behind the rest of the world.
Broken - Er, Breaking News!
Gotta catch em' all!
The Man @ 11:
Sorry to go off topic, but that look on Jenna's boyfriend's face was priceless. He looked like a male praying mantis right after mating.
I thought this report was done quite well actually, for Fox Noise anyway. I thought they handled it in a pretty balanced fashion, and I don't understand why anyone would take issue with the piece.
I mean come on. Don't just hate for hating's sake. There's plenty to pick at Fox News about without having to resort to attacking for the sake of it.
the thing that makes wikipedia so great is also one of it's biggest flaws: anyone can edit it. for those who don't see a problem with this, consider the following- say someone wrote a wiki article about you (since you yourself can't do it) and they write some things about you. then say someone that you pissed off pretty badly finds this wiki article and they make some changes, not necisserily negative, but say remove some of the positive things that you did.
say someone in the obama camp edited something on hillary's wiki page, or vice versa. same thing. its not that their pages were edited, its who they edited, what was edited, and who did the editing that is the real sticking point.
Wow, there's such a thing as wikipedia? Fox News is always on top of the latest internet breakthroughs. I heard there's a website called Crooks & Liars but I won't believe it until Fox News breaks this story.
Are we seeing a pattern here? The attack on DailyKos and now Wikipedia. Methinks that at the core, Fox hates open forums of information. But then again... that's just me.
it's time for an all-out campaigne against fnc.
we need to organize and let ALL of fnc's advertizers we will boycott all their products.
yes, that is a real challenge,but will be worth it to remove this lying
bunch of bastards. r murddock go fuck yourself.
[...] entries that don’t reflect well on the network. And now that they’ve been caught, Fox News is turning its guns on Wikipedia. 8:13 pm | [...]
Somewhere a brass gorilla is missing its balls.
Let's face it, Wikopedia is a quick and easy information resource, but it is not authoritative, especially on controversial or political subjects. I have watched over the years as its definition of Fascism has been garbled and watered down by Libertarians, Republicans and other right wing corporatists and authoritarians who have tried to rewrite history and define it as something other than corporatism. On some days, to read wiki's definition, you would think that Fascism was synonymous with left wing ideology. It's complete rubbish.
So what happens now? Will or can someone go back and correct what Fox did?
Let's see if the MSM follows this one? Fox "News" is the poorest excuse for journalism ever.
Snowball @ 23:
Yes, that's true, but it still should not allow Fox "News" to polish a turd -- its turd. Fox News is a joke and it should be held as such. Funny, how the truth has a way of coming back and kicking them right in the crotch.
If Chris Wallace's dad wasn't who he is, he'd be working at WalMart, if whoever his dad was managed a WalMart.
What a buffoon.
Fox, Breaking News
in half,
only giving you the right side
I mean the wrong side.
the reason FNC has higher ratings than any other network in the US is because they have monopolized 100% conservative viewership while the rest of the country is spread out between nbc, cbs, abc, msnbc, cnn, ect, ect, ect. fnc does not care if they it gets caught meddling with wikipedia, exposed by dailykos and media matters because that viewership is not going anywhere.
People who watch FOX Infotainment can use computers?
Got caught with your hand in the cookie jar?
Blame the cookie jar for existing in the first place!
Man, if only I was dumb enough to subscribe to wingnut logic. Must be a simple existence.
Graham @ 16:
I agree...one of the best Faux Noise reports I have seen...of course not live, since I
refuse to watch that particular channel, but gain my insight here on C&L and Media
Matters. Seems to me it was "fair and balanced"...as much as I hate to admit.
This really isn't surprising especially since Fox News operates in much the same way as a news outlet in North Korea.
faux snooze.....at least someone caught them
Bluestater@24
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Fox got caught with its pants down. It seems that the CIA has also been caught doing the same thing:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/16/fbi-cia-employees-editing-wikipedia-...
This has long been my problem with wikipedia.
"You libs are taking these changes out of context"
~Reich-winger rebuttal.
Snowball @ 34:
O'Reilly was throwing a hissy fit last week that 'bourne supremacy' is anti-American because it made the CIA look like bad guys.
I read some of the editing and I guess it could have been worse. Fox News could have placed pictures of Bush's ass on those Wiki pages and indicated where to kiss it. Nah, that would have been to obvious. Everyone would have known right off that it was Fox News that placed those pictures there in the first place.
The first thing you need to know about FOX "news" - they went to court in 2003 to defend their 'first amendment right' to knowingly lie to their viewers.
Court Ruled That Media Can Lie. And sadly, won.
It's all part of a larger plot by the corporate right begun shortly after Watergate to make sure that the public would never again know enough about a corrupted administration to force a resignation.
What Happened to the American Media?
The demise of the fairness doctrine, the dismantling of the rules limiting ownership - all played into the hands of Rupert Murdoch. The truth is the big loser.
Corporate Media, the CIA, where's the dividing line?
Did they edit the Wiki entry that states Rupert Murdochs' face looks a lot like Brittany Spears crotch when she's getting out of a car?
-GSD
GSD @ 40:
The wiki editors get obvious stuff like that out pretty quick. Its the more subtle things that they aren't so good at.
Sorry Fox News. Ain't gonna work.
There are more wikipedia users than Fox News Viewers.
The sheer unadulterated audacity of these guys just blows my mind.
"Oh, and by the way, we, like all these corporations, use the Wiki to make changes." Ho hum!
Wal-Mart changing their own site is one thing, but Faux Noise changing a competitors site info is just freaking wrong!
I hope Keith Olbermann chews their head off for:
1. Making the changes and
2. For this Bull shit "Story" they did to justify it.
These guys make me want to puke...
"the reason FNC has higher ratings than any other network in the US is because they have monopolized 100% conservative viewership while the rest of the country is spread out between nbc, cbs, abc, msnbc, cnn, ect, ect, ect. fnc does not care if they it gets caught meddling with wikipedia, exposed by dailykos and media matters because that viewership is not going anywhere."
Viewership not going anywhere???
With an AVERAGE AGE OF 75, I'd say Fox viewers are going somewhere...SOON.
Zonk
Of course the Fox viewers are not going anywhere. That's why they are a bunch of paranoid losers who blame their own failures on minorities, women, gays, non-Christians and immigrants.
What a bunch a f***brains, they didn't even have the smarts to know
that they should go to an Internet Cafe and do their revisionist history making.
Never mind partisan-tinkering, is that Chris Wallace's real face, or am I having a LSD flashback? Since when did cartoon characters deliver the "news"?
Arroyo @ 46:
They do now, so watch out!
notice how Faux doesn't mention that when it was their computers making changes it wasn't to make Faux look better but to make other people look worse or really to damage their credibility...that's kind of glossed over, but then again it's now legal for Faux to make up news as they see fit, according to an appeals judge...I didn't hear Mann Coulter cry about activist judges then, but again, that's typical.
LISTEN UP: I strongly recommend that everyone proceed to Wikipedia and open up a new account. Once there, add 4-5 pages to your WATCH LIST. Ensure they are topics that you know something about.
WARNING: Do not direct all of your time editing Wikipedia because that would be a monumental waste of energy. However, please do contribute, because right now, right-wingers are taking over the asylum.
In the case of Chris Wallace, the case can definitely be made that an apple can indeed fall far from the tree.
Ooh, and Keith just laid yet another brilliant double-smackdown on BillO for Worst Person in the World tonight.
I hope it gets posted.
Go to wikipedia and look up wanker.
Wanker is President Bush
LOL
Wonder what Mike thinks of his lying hack of an offspring?
Snowball @ 45:
Don't forget feminists and lesbians. Oh, and I don't know if "non-Christians" covers pagans.
Ah, Falwell....
Bush the Liar @ 53:
Sweet Jebus! That's funny.
Much like their beloved Bush administration, Fox News is ruthless, ethics-free and shameless. They won't feel shame until they are publically derided and mocked into shutting the F**k Up. Keep up the good work C&L.
lafin gas @ 27:
The right side IS the wrong side.
just go to google & look up 'wanker'--first listing--LOL
their communists...simple as that
A little Orwellian wouldn't you say? Winston's job at the ministry of truth was to re-write stories and re-write history so that it would be favorable to Big Brother. The Fox people are pretty darn creepy. Obviously, honesty is not a big issue with them.
Fox needs to be exposed to the world. We need to stay on top of these guys.
The FCC went nuts over Howard Stern's telling of sex and fart jokes, yet a supposed legitimate "news" org can pull this crap and get away with it. Are there NO standards to enforce? Truth in advertising and other guidelines control business practices in any number of fields (at least till the criminal ShrubCo gave everyone { at least if you're Rethugliscum} a get out of jail free card) , but the lies and transparent propaganda of these fascists is no big deal.
Bush Misadministration, go Cheney yourselves!
[Deleted-Sitemonitor]
I was surprised to hear them actually admit towards the end, "And yes even [computers at] Fox News [were used to edit Wikipedia pages]."
They glossed over it, and lumped themselves in with a bunch of other companies to suggest "everyone does it" and the edits were only regarding their finances or business practices, but definitely didn't admit they were actively sabotaging the pages of rivals & critics.
They do that a lot... include "just enough truth" so that if anyone calls them on their deception, they can always point and say, "See here! Look how Fair & Balanced we are!".
[...] Clark Contact the Webmaster Link to Article al franken, al franken An embarrassed Fox News hits Wikipedia » Posted at Crooks [...]
It's "Do as we say not as we do" the standard repug belief system.
No really, I'd like to know if anyone knows what Mike thinks of the douche bag who claims to be kin.
Anyone have that info?
Do they teach fox news models to raise the left eyebrow when delivering the news?
I can't stand that pic. That smug look on Chris Wallace's face needs to be slapped off. I wish Clinton knocked him out.
Ronin Tetsuro @ 30:
This sounds exactly like a defense for rape, too. Doesn't it?
Doggiebobo @ 31:
Fair/balance my ass. They weren't changing things to make themselves to look better. They were changing things to slur other people.
JohnnyBravo @ 70:
I think he wanted to. The verbal smackdown was pretty good though.
I love Wikipedia. It's homegrown, and I wouldn't use it as a reference in a research paper, but it's a good place to start the research.
john @ 6:
Not necessarily the poor in the case of Fox News, but retirement age men who've worked their entire lives and are still waiting to "get theirs."
[Deleted-Sitemonitor]
Graham @ 16:
Because they failed to mention that they did things like smear people they're diametrically opposed to. Instead of apologizing, they blamed the site itself. Its like me getting caught robbing a bank & blaming the bank for being easy enough for me to rob.
john @ 6:
This is my favorite new Fox description. Can't wait to try it out on all my Republican friends and relatives, of whom there are far far too many.
Mike Wallace must be as tearfully ashamed of his son as George H. W. Bush is of his own. Christ...these people make me want to change my views on forced sterilization.
Fox will do anything to keep the culture war trains running on time
I hope everyone involved in Fox News DIES horribly . . . ebola would do. What scum, lowering the bar of public discourse every day in every way. Mike Wallace should do the honorable thing and *remove* Chris Wallace.
All the above is and should be considered parody/comedy, just for all you little G-men scanning the Internet looking to harass citizens and destroy the Constitution.
It is? You've got a low threshold for humor. I didn't see any wit to it. At least learn how Wikipedia works and have "wanker" direct to the real George W. Bush article. Better yet, don't vandalize articles at all. There are people who care more about Wikipedia's accuracy than right- OR left-wing politics. Don't make them clean up EVERYBODY's shit.
Two words:
Damage control
:lol: This was on Keith Olbermann's show tonight... too funny that they got caught! :lol:
seems the link from DailyKOS has disappeared.
LISTEN UP @ 50:
How about not using it at all? Why waste you time reading something that might or might not be true when you are specifically looking for information?
Chris calls for a competency hearing for dad, who doesn't support Bush
This is not a good man.
Question: Why hasn't this whole fiasco about Fox News rewriting its journalists' wiki pages been placed on the Fox News Wiki page?
The FBI and the CIA also got caught editing Wikipedia:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070816/ts_nm/security_wikipedia_dc
WikiScanner was used by Wikipedia to trace Fox News, the CIA and FBI. Maybe Crooks and Liars can use it to trace down trolls.
julia @ 87:
Daaayam, thats just wrong. wingnutilitus is a brain disorder.
why don't you use a fucking flash player like everyone else, c&l
For the last time, it's "Faux News".
Could it get any more douchier? I doubt it. Please, i'll take 2 nozzles in the ass and an elephant stomp on the bag.
Crooks and Liars » An embarrassed Fox News hits Wikipedia
http://static.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/chris-wallace.thumbnail.jpg
Fox News is not a work in progress.
Fox News is a work in regress.
Q: Why do so many Repugs/'cons have their hair like Wallace there?
A: It is Repug offical hair style #1-A, a popular hair style during Nixon era .
How typical of a bunch of left winged socialist and fascists. Here is a not so new channel that has conservative views most of the time and because of that they get attacked. All the while most of the main stream media is biased towards the left. maybe they are not fair and balanced but CNN and MSNBC aren't either.
All I see is a bunch of whining babies who don't want another voice out there. All you socialist pigs and your lies about freedom. If you trully believed what you preach then you wouldn't be attacking Fox News. Criticize them if you must and point out their flaws but to sit here and
To me is makes sense since the only time someone gets attacked by the left it is usually when they are popular or make tons of money.
I guess its ok when a news room erupts in cheers at the news of a morons(Rove) decision to leave the white house. I guess thats your idea of fair news.
Guess what the whole news media is skewed one way or the other. It just so happens that Fox is not your way and they are popular. So you try to censor them.
Fox isn't perfect and neither is wikipedia. There have been many times where companies and politicians got caught revising the articles. The great thing here is there is a record of what and who did what. I wouldn't be surprised if Fox was not the only News agency to do this.
I thought Blair's middle name was "Bushlicker." I'll have to go over to Wikipedia to check on that...;-)
Hell, if they want to create their own 'facts' they should stick to editing stuff in Conservapedia and leave Wikipedia to the reasonable folk.
Graham @ 16:
This is nearly verbatim what I planned to say, and there isn't nearly enough agreement with this sentiment. When you blindly criticize everything your opponents do, you end up undermining and weakening your own position, not to mention giving them more ammo to use against you.
[...] An embarrassed Fox News hits Wikipedia — Thanks to some IP-address based research, the political world learned that the FNC was responsible for “touching up” Wikipedia pages, editing content that didn’t fit with the partisan network’s political agenda. Tagged as: [fox communication lying obfuscation] [...]
[...] It quietly edits unflattering Wikipedia posts. Details HERE. [...]
[...] It quietly edits unflattering Wikipedia posts. Details HERE. [...]
Does Fox "News" have ANY credibility left yet???
They have become an international joke.
www.exposed.forumarena.com
Someone mentioned Conservapedia as an alternative. But I looked at in and specificlly at areas I have 22 years of knowledge and the best teachers. I have also been an expert witness in court cases. Conservapedia get a lot of things very wrong. It is way worse than Wiki will ever be.
That being said. If you get info from any of those two web sites or fox news be sure and try and find back up facts and the details they omit convieniently, or perhaps out of a lack of knowledge.
Last night I saw a fox news bit on al-qaeda style attacks in Iraq. It did not mention the attacks killed Yezidi's.
That is what makes it so obvious that it was al qaeda attacks. So geez.....wake up and inform not push edit button.
Attacks on Yezidi people in the Kurdish area are designed by al-Qaeda to weaken the religious freedom in North Iraq. and cause tensions. But al-Qaeda won't succeed with those tactics in Kurdish area. Saddam never succedded and look where it got him.
Michael Yon was embeded in Iraq and went to meet the Yezidi people and learn more about them since no one seems to have their story straight or even try to get the facts on the rich heritage there.
Here is a good link to Mr. Yons online Magazine that clears some of the smoke.
Lost in Translation - Yezdinar Village, Iraq
[...] An embarrassed Fox News hits Wikipedia Fox News tried to exploit Wikipedia, and got caught, so naturally it’s time to undermine the source of the network’s embarrassment. Typical. [...]
moonsha @ 86:
As opposed to what? Not getting any information? I take the loads of questionable information and wade through it using skepticism, thank you very much.
Not using Wikipedia sounds like a bad idea. Just because humans might be lying, I still don't stop talking to them.
And there's no alternative that is more objective and as broad (I pretty much think that impossible to achieve) as Wikipedia. (I'd like to be corrected on this - I really don't know)
And given that Wikipedia retains the page history, I don't really see the problem. The solution is exactly that everyone edits it to fit his picture of the world and monitors changes and in the end you check the page history and see.
Or was that sarcasm in your tone? After i thought about it, you can't be serious.
Tom @ 98:
Fascists aren't at all left-wing, they're far-right actually, in opposition to socialism...
But i agree, i didn't find the report at all biased or inaccurate, it was a quite good one... bet half of the people criticizing it didn't even watch it.
Wish people would start thinking for themselves, rather than judge everything in simplistic ways such as "everything FOX says is bad". Being a liberal means first and foremost thinking for yourself ;)
What a weasel this chris wallace is
[...] to get shown up after the CIA got caught modifying it’s wikipedia pages. So what does Fox do? Get caught modifying it’s wikipedia pages, of [...]
My dear sheeple, I used to watch the fox on occasion just to witness the BS then I found and they watch the fox so I don't have to.
Baaa Ha Ha
Fox news? Is that a channel?
As stated above quite a few times, this is actually a really good news piece. It doesn't "go after" Wikipedia any more than any other news piece has ever done, and Fox News let Jimmy Wales gave out the answer he gives whenever anyone points these flaws out.
If I was a TV News editor I would have no problem putting this piece on my station. Which somewhat amazes me considering the source.
As a flaming liberal, I didn't think that this news clip was half as bad as the poster made it out to be. Sure, they slam the website, and claim that its openness to edits from anyone make it inaccurate, but they also say that even Fox News themselves were guilty of tampering with entries. I think Jimmy Wales comment that the edits are a result of "over-zealous employees" and not "company policy" is actually fairly profound. However, I do think that Fox News was intending to do a minor hatchet job on wikipedia's credibility, not because of any perceived scandal, but to legitimately put doubt into their viewers minds into trusting information on the site...and any sort of skepticism that FOX news will teach its viewers...is probably for the best...because it will help them learn to sort the fact from opinion they are receiving from Faux news.
Tom @ 98:
Typical Faux "News" supporter. Look, the reason they get bashed so much is that they claim to be a news organization and that they are fair & balanced. They are neither. Most of us could care less what crap they spew, but at least be honest that they are a neo-conservative propaganda machine that parrot the bush administration's talking points. No true professional journalist would assoicate let alone work for Faux News. They are simply not credible. And I could care less if they are allegedly the "most popular" news channel. That is why our country is in the shape it is; people actually believe the garbage that is Faux News.
Looking up IP addresses is an invasion of privacy, pure and simple. Ok when a left-wing blogger with too much time on his hands does it to attempt to embarrass someone he doesn't like; not ok if the government does it to stop terrorists from doing harm to our country.
The title of this post is misleading. If you see the video, you will see that it's overall tone is not to undermine Wikipedia, but rather point out the Wikiscanner project -- even mentioning that Fox employees apparently edited entries. I dislike Fox News (or Fox "News") as much as the next guy, but we should still keep to fairly reporting on it.
I believe that FOX PHEWS is suitable for the skunks they are!
KYkernel @ 117:
Actually, this is incorrect. If it was the RIAA and the MPAA would be getting into deep shit.
And when a Right-wing spin doctor decides to fluff up his cred by editing facts he doesn't like even when quoted verbatim from a video of his ranting, that's ok? Wow... must be nice behind those rose colored glasses you are wearing
Joe @ 118:
did you know that 06 was an election year, too? or did you omit that because, well, you lost? :)
It really pains me to do so......I may have to go home sick from work after this post. But I have to give Faux News credit for at least mentioning themselves in this report when they talked about big media outlets who had self-servingly edited Wikipedia entries.
[Deleted. Abusive flamebait]
Joe @ 124:
Given the political climate and how poorly the Republicans approval ratings are, I would say, yeah, it's more than likely the White House will be reclaimed by the Democrats. You should actually try to follow politics.
Joe @ 118:
Thanks for the laugh. This post and the one where you call someone else stupid after defending Faux News for "telling it like it is" is just priceless. Take your head outta your a$$ and breathe some fresh air for a change. It'll do you (and your country) good.
Joe @ 124:
Hey Joe, Blow Me. It's narrow minded pin heads like you that have brought this country two steps from destruction. When we finally do away with your criminal organization (aka Bush administration), we will come looking for the rest of you. So just sit tight with your NRA flag and your Mit '08 buttons. We will get to you in due course. It may take a few years, but we won't forget who sold out for the corporate dollars and the oil. There will be a little cell with your name on it, waiting just for you and your kind.
Honesty
This is pretty sad. First Fox News Channel get caught editing Wikipedia entries to make themselves look better...
This is a non-story. Left-wing, right-wing, all wings have made Wikipedia edits. People will simply start using anonymizers now when they edit Wikipedia articles.
I know I will...
[...] An embarrassed Fox News hits Wikipedia [...]
tiel @ 129:
*shrugs*
I won't because when I do edit, it's not something I have to hide.
Professor Farnsworth @ 131:
I agree. Any genuinely honest person shouldn't have to make anything up.
hello @ 132:
Exactly. Why cover up your tracks if you aren't doing anything wrong/questionable? I usually edit Wiki pages for actor/actresses/bands I'm fans of, to add some new info that I found and isn't on there. I really don't care if my IP address shows up there.
Yeah.... right. Y'all are so righteous!
tiel @ 134:
If you say so.
FAUX NEWS and ppl like joe are the real terrorists destroying this country and should be treated as such...
Anyone see this yet today?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293528,00.html
Pretty damn ironic. Ok, so the fact that his argument is bs isnt ironic. The part about accusing others of being partisan in their reporting because of their personal politics and then we have this about Fox employees doing something so similarly partisan.
Nice to see that Crooks actually has an example of biased reporting, rather than just biased behavior by Fox staff. You'll notice that the hack John Gibson doesnt have the same. He doesnt site a single instance of actual reporting that is biased.
[Deleted and banned.]
Joe @ 138:
yes, why hope for peace when you can have violence and death!!
Therefore I say: 'Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning and losing are equal.
If ignorant of both your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril.
(Sun Tzu, The Art of War, chapter 3, lines 31-33).
They photo of Chris Wallace should act as a warning to little kids who still watch tv sprawled on the floor on their stomachs, with their faces squashed between their hands.
Did y'all notice the "liberal" media all sporting lapel flags (presumably made in China), and all having the headline "America Strikes Back," like the war was being directed by George Lucas?
Unfortuantely, it's being led by Jar-Jar Binks.
Fortunately FAUX news had Geraldo Rivera to give away our troop movements to the enemies.
Jim @ 3:
Thats great Jim, so is this after we're forced to tattoo our political affiliation onto our arms?
The F.B.I. and th C.I.A. have been editing Wikipedia from company computers...
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1642896020070816
It's not Faux News or Fox Noise. Call FOX it what it really is: The Ministry of Propaganda.
I didn't think the Fox News report was slanted. They discussed the new software used to track who's changing what on Wikipedia and even admitted that they got caught.
The reliability of Wikipedia has been questioned by both sides of the aisle. Everyone knows that Wikipedia is about as reliable as... well, as the rest of the Internet.
If by gaining more casualties we're winning in Iraq,
Than a certain banned commenter will take his anathemization as a victory
Perhaps a pyrrhic victory
After a pyrrhic victory do the surviving soldiers have bloody gums?
Jeremy @ 145:
It's still good for this:
http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/jul2006/bonobo_female_sex.jpg
ysbaddaden @ 139:
You are my new favorite poster on this channel. ^_^ At least someone around here knows we are in a war and has the notion to look to the great masters for advice. This is a MUST READ for all people who want to look at propaganda tactics as a mirror image of the physical war tactics, because usually, they do in fact compliment one another if not outright emulate the other.
As for Wikipedia, FOX news has outsmarted many of us again, for many reasons. First off, they are a news organization (propaganda labeling aside, we know that already, a spade is a spade) so they are rather comfortable scouring for stories... when we expose their lies on the blogosphere, they can and will - as you have seen - report it on broadcast to flavor the sentiment of the argument. Rather than let some other organization call them out forcibly, they have broken the story to the public (faster than the blogosphere) in such a way as to minimize the angry sentiment.
It was set out like a chess game. move the wiki-pawn into position, strip it of its idealogical power ('it is flawed'); then, show 'experts' who show you how the flaws are exploited by companies, but NOT THE CORP's themselves, just people who work there (again, disarming its ability to bite back). Then they slap themselves on the wrist with the dead pawn's hand. brilliant.
If I wasn't angry to begin with over the actual wiki-edits, I am angry over how quickly they redirected and effectively disarmed the outrage of the mainstream. It's the principle of the matter that was the heart of the sin, and they framed the debate before anyone else could get their hands on it. I was so excited when a blogger outed this story... *sigh*
From now on, I think if we find something completely outrageous that FOX does, we as individuals should not post it on blogs, but silently slip it to another media outlet. It gives them less of a fighting change to demean the message to the dogs, as it were.
138 another-mouse
Check out my link of comment 137.
yeh, that was.... interesting. LOL.
Login or Register to post comments.