Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The teacher, Tammy Williams, explained what really happened"
"The school's principal, Ami Paradise, likewise released a statement declaring that the claims of anti-Christian bigotry made by Advocates of Faith and Freedom were entirely bogus"
You still think that story is true, don't you? Probably want it to be true. And that's the problem with this kind of story, as well as the one that the OP mentioned.
You clearly don't understand the difference between reporting a story as it develops (meaning that first it's determined whether or not there is a story and second what may or may not have happened) and reporting a story as fact. Why does that not surprise me?
Good to check these things out. First, Todd Starnes is NOT reporter. He is a Fox News Contributor. He does commentary. The "Raw Story" quoting some outfit called "Right Wing Watch tries to depict Starnes repeatedly as a "Reporter". This is not the case..
Second, the item from this radical left commentary site indicates the Teacher nor the Principle were quoted but they were "compelled to release their own statement". In fact, according to commentator Starnes piece the District was approached and responded thusly: " Due to the fact that District officials are currently investigating the allegations, it would be inappropriate to provide further comment at this time.”
My complaint about this item is not the "he said, she said" aspect. I have not taken a side. I suspect a school district is not going to say "yes, we stopped the little girl from her presentation because we don't like Christian content in the schools". My complaint is with "The Raw Story" which wants to present this item as if it came from the Fox News Department as a factual report. It did not. It came from Fox News Contributor Todd Starnes who is a commentator. He is called upon to give OPINION. Fox News also has liberal commentators (Juan Williams, Kirsten Powers to name just two-there are many more).
I could spend all day quoting liberal commentators and calling them "liars" (name calling is always effective in an argument) but why bother.
Recent Pew Research shows FOX NEWS is the most trusted News Source in the country. That pole did not confine it's research to conservatives. That's a cross sample of the American population. You may not like it, but that is a fact. I have to assume they are doing something right.
.
Good to check these things out. First, Todd Starnes is NOT reporter. He is a Fox News Contributor. He does commentary. The "Raw Story" quoting some outfit called "Right Wing Watch tries to depict Starnes repeatedly as a "Reporter". This is not the case..
A distinction worthy of a lawyer. So why aren't Fox News Contributors called Fox News Commentators? Being a contributor does not preclude reporting. And regardless of the title, this should not except a person from reporting the facts of a case accurately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneR
Second, the item from this radical left commentary site indicates the Teacher nor the Principle were quoted but they were "compelled to release their own statement". In fact, according to commentator Starnes piece the District was approached and responded thusly: " Due to the fact that District officials are currently investigating the allegations, it would be inappropriate to provide further comment at this time.”
If you look at the something Valley news site that I linked to, the teacher's and principal's comments were made at the School Board meeting where the investigation was closed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneR
My complaint about this item is not the "he said, she said" aspect. I have not taken a side. I suspect a school district is not going to say "yes, we stopped the little girl from her presentation because we don't like Christian content in the schools". My complaint is with "The Raw Story" which wants to present this item as if it came from the Fox News Department as a factual report. It did not. It came from Fox News Contributor Todd Starnes who is a commentator. He is called upon to give OPINION. Fox News also has liberal commentators (Juan Williams, Kirsten Powers to name just two-there are many more).
So you are ok with "commentators" just making stuff up as they go and a news organization that gives them ability to spew such fiction is exempt from responsibility? How low can the bar be set exactly? I mean really. This should be a non-partisan issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneR
I could spend all day quoting liberal commentators and calling them "liars" (name calling is always effective in an argument) but why bother.
That stuff should also be posted in the hopes that people take their source of information with a grain of salt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneR
Recent Pew Research shows FOX NEWS is the most trusted News Source in the country. That pole did not confine it's research to conservatives. That's a cross sample of the American population. You may not like it, but that is a fact. I have to assume they are doing something right.
.
Oh brother. You get that that data reveals and measures feelings, right?
Also from that study:
"The survey also found that there is no media source that has a political role on the center or left that is comparable to Fox's on the right. As [the first chart] illustrates, while more than half of Republicans list Fox as a trusted news source, no other source comes close. ... By contrast, there is no dominant trusted news source among Democrats or liberals."
An old maxim from the world of flim-flam states that "you can't cheat an honest man."
Well, she is pretty stupid. So i'm not surprised by the news that they believed whatever she said. I mean god, this is the lady that said vaccinations make you retarded
I think both parties would do well to ignore her for the moron she is
Hardly the first time something like this has happened unfortunately:
"A Fox News correspondent has been busted again for pushing a one-sided story claiming religious persecution of Christians . . . Todd Starnes helped promote a story about a California first-grader who allegedly was not allowed to give a one-minute presentation about her family’s Christmas tradition because it included religious references. Other targets of Starnes’ poorly sourced reporting have reported similar harassment."
Scared to see the lunacy of the far left wing media exposed ? Scared to think of how many times you may be lied to yet you may have based your ideology on said lies?
"The survey also found that there is no media source that has a political role on the center or left that is comparable to Fox's on the right. As [the first chart] illustrates, while more than half of Republicans list Fox as a trusted news source, no other source comes close. ... By contrast, there is no dominant trusted news source among Democrats or liberals."
Could it be that Fox stands alone as the only conservative news site where as liberals have several networks of choice? And of course using just common logic when several networks are sharing the same liberal pie of course none of them would be as dominant as Fox
So you are ok with "commentators" just making stuff up as they go and a news organization that gives them ability to spew such fiction is exempt from responsibility? How low can the bar be set exactly? I mean really. This should be a non-partisan issue.
And what was "made up" in this story? Is it not true that an action was filed by the attorney representing the family? Did the school district not say they had no comment? I'm trying to see the point that Starnes "made up" and created a "fiction". Each statement he made was based on information he received from the parties involved. Unless of course he simply created the entire episode which then would lead me to agree with your position that it was a "fiction". According to Starnes item the family did, in fact, believe they were being persecuted by the school because of their Christian faith. You may or may not agree with that position but I would not call the representation by Starnes as "fiction" or "made up".
As far as Fox News not labeling people "commentators" rather than "contributors" I would assume any observer when seeing two people making opposing arguments that observer would conclude it is two opposing "opinions" and would not think it's two reporters stating facts (other than the opinions are based on facts as they see them).
However, I will confess my exposure to Fox is as a viewer and not a reader. So I usually see these contributors as part of a panel where more than one side is presented.
I also would suggest there is no trusted news source for liberals because every attempt to create such an outlet has failed including MSNBC which uses one of the contributors to the "Raw Story". They simply do not attract sufficient viewers, listeners or readers to be profitable. An exception to that is the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times and many other metro newspapers although their profitability is declining rapidly (as are all print outlets).
Interesting that Raw Story was the one that pointed out that Think Progress fell for the hoax. And they did it in such a professional manner with the headline "Crazy racist Bachmann story so believable liberal websites fall for parody"
If you asking the media to do some investigating and find the truth you asking alot.
Besides I know the perfect place to send those kids HOME.
Turn them back over to the mexican and or other governments and say here are your children.
You find their parents.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And that's the problem with this kind of story, as well as the one that the OP mentioned.
