Lifestyle

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

292 | 293 | 294

 ... 944

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

jake_lex

jake_lex

Lexington, KY
February 2003

AUG 27, 2005 03:08 PM

Occasionally, Fox News does something really, really dumb that really seems to go a long way towards proving their reputation as an outlet for right-wing slanted news that's not very well reported. One of those came on August 7th, when during a show, a former federal prosecutor named John Lofton gave out an address of a house live on the air, and alleged the house was the home of a Middle Eastern terrorist connected to the London bombings.

The problem was that the house is actually the home of Randy and Ronnell Vorick, who have nothing to do with terrorism at all. The house did indeed once belong to Iyad Hilal, the terrorist in question, but he moved out three years ago. Since the report aired, they say that the good "patriots" who watch Fox "News" have repeatedly harassed and threatened them.

Satellite photos of the house and directions to the residence were posted online. The Voricks told police, who arranged for the content to be taken down. Someone even removed the street sign where the Voricks live to provide some protection.

Still, it has not been easy.

A driver yelled a profanity at the family and called them terrorists as they barbecued on their patio Aug. 14. Some drivers have stopped and photographed the house, Randy Vorick said.

Last weekend, someone spray-painted "Terrist" on their home. Police, who have regularly patrolled their house since the day after the broadcast, now station a squad car across the street.

Randy, a restaurant manager, and Ronnell, a manager at a staffing agency, have been married 19 years and met as teenagers when they worked at a local McDonald's.

They grew up in La Habra and bought the house three years ago after Hilal moved out so they could be close to Ronnell Vorick's parents.

La Habra Police Capt. John Rees said the department was "giving special attention to the family to make sure they're safe," but declined to elaborate.


Fox is truly, truly, truly sorry, of course, but not sorry enough to tell the Voricks themselves.

The Voricks said they had made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Fox News and Loftus by telephone and e-mail. They want a public apology and correction.

Both have issued apologies — Fox in a one-line statement to the Los Angeles Times and Loftus in an e-mail to the family — after being contacted by the newspaper. The Voricks say they have yet to see or hear a correction.

"John Loftus has been reprimanded for his careless error, and we sincerely apologize to the family," said Fox spokeswoman Irena Brigante.

Loftus also apologized and told The Times last week that "mistakes happen."

"I'm terribly sorry about that. I had no idea. That was the best information we had at the time," he said.

Loftus said he gave out the address to help local police, and insisted that Hilal, a Garden Grove grocery store owner, was a terrorist.

"I thought it might help police in that area now that we have positively identified a terrorist living in [Orange County]," he said.


Hmm, I wonder why this guy is a former prosecutor.

Besides, even if Fox or this guy could be sure that this was indeed Hilal's house, why the hell is Fox letting him give an exact address out over the air? In the current climate, that's an invitation to some nutjob to go take care of business himself.

But Fox shows time and again that basic journalistic ethics don't matter to them.

LA Times login:
EA: sgnews5 AT gmail.com
PW: sgnews

JohnClement

JohnClement

Silver Spring, MD
January 2004

AUG 27, 2005 03:17 PM

I wonder if just maybe calling local police would have been a better method of "helping local police" than say, broadcasting it nationwide.

monkeybuttt

monkeybuttt

Los Angeles, CA
June 2005

AUG 27, 2005 03:22 PM

and people don't believe what they see on television, i've been told.

_Pauly_

_Pauly_

United Kingdom
June 2004

AUG 27, 2005 04:17 PM

Last weekend, someone spray-painted "Terrist" on their home.



Indeed lol.

Nice to see that Fox News is "looking out for you" (Just to quote Bill O'Reilly puke ) wink

[Edited on Aug 28, 2005 12:18AM]

chuckgelman

chuckgelman

New York, NY
July 2004

AUG 27, 2005 04:28 PM

What a bunch of dicks.

El_Phantasma

El_Phantasma

Etobicoke, ON
July 2005

AUG 27, 2005 05:01 PM

Last weekend, someone spray-painted "Terrist" on their home.

That's almost as good as spray painting whites only as "WHITS ONLY". Remember that FAMILLY TIES episode?

LostIdentity

LostIdentity

Westville, NJ
October 2004

AUG 27, 2005 06:20 PM


Occasionally, Fox News does something really, really dumb that really seems to go a long way towards proving their reputation as an outlet for right-wing slanted news that's not very well reported.



Occasionally? lol

HelloCentral

HelloCentral

Saint Agatha, ME
February 2004

AUG 27, 2005 06:40 PM

The information was given out on a live broadcast. It seems to me that this is the fault of the person whose terrible judgement it was to announce that information. Though I do wonder why fox has apparently not run a retraction, I hardly think they're the only network who would behave this way.

effstop

effstop

Las Vegas, NV
June 2004

AUG 27, 2005 06:45 PM

holyfuck said:
The information was given out on a live broadcast. It seems to me that this is the fault of the person whose terrible judgement it was to announce that information. Though I do wonder why fox has apparently not run a retraction, I hardly think they're the only network who would behave this way.



whoa! logic! good to see, it's so scarce around here sometimes.

bad on fox for not airing a retraction, unless they did and the people in this thread just didn't see it. still, let us not forget CBS and the late, great, dan rather!! woohoo! a true douchebag.

jake_lex

jake_lex

Lexington, KY
February 2003

AUG 27, 2005 06:48 PM

fstop said:

holyfuck said:
The information was given out on a live broadcast. It seems to me that this is the fault of the person whose terrible judgement it was to announce that information. Though I do wonder why fox has apparently not run a retraction, I hardly think they're the only network who would behave this way.



whoa! logic! good to see, it's so scarce around here sometimes.

bad on fox for not airing a retraction, unless they did and the people in this thread just didn't see it. still, let us not forget CBS and the late, great, dan rather!! woohoo! a true douchebag.



They should have dumped him, or at least had the anchor step in and say "You shouldn't give out the address on the air."

Not only did they not do this, they ran a satellite photo of the house on their website, so you'd be good and sure to know where to go.

And I'm not sure how what CBS did excuses this. CBS fucked up, true, but I don't recall them giving yahoos the address to go kill a terrorist for Amurica like Fox did. What is the journalistic purpose of airing the address? I don't understandt hat at all. CBS's story, while wrong, at least has a journalistic reason for being aired.

Or just one other thing: if you're going to give the address, how's about making sure that the guy you say living there still does? How hard can that be?
[Edited on Aug 27, 2005 6:53PM]

[Edited on Aug 27, 2005 by jake_lex]

NYLinkinRhyme

NYLinkinRhyme

Des Moines, IA
August 2005

AUG 27, 2005 07:13 PM

Fox news can suck my left nut

effstop

effstop

Las Vegas, NV
June 2004

AUG 27, 2005 08:02 PM

jake_lex said:

fstop said:

holyfuck said:
The information was given out on a live broadcast. It seems to me that this is the fault of the person whose terrible judgement it was to announce that information. Though I do wonder why fox has apparently not run a retraction, I hardly think they're the only network who would behave this way.



whoa! logic! good to see, it's so scarce around here sometimes.

bad on fox for not airing a retraction, unless they did and the people in this thread just didn't see it. still, let us not forget CBS and the late, great, dan rather!! woohoo! a true douchebag.



They should have dumped him, or at least had the anchor step in and say "You shouldn't give out the address on the air."

Not only did they not do this, they ran a satellite photo of the house on their website, so you'd be good and sure to know where to go.

And I'm not sure how what CBS did excuses this. CBS fucked up, true, but I don't recall them giving yahoos the address to go kill a terrorist for Amurica like Fox did. What is the journalistic purpose of airing the address? I don't understandt hat at all. CBS's story, while wrong, at least has a journalistic reason for being aired.

Or just one other thing: if you're going to give the address, how's about making sure that the guy you say living there still does? How hard can that be?
[Edited on Aug 27, 2005 6:53PM]

[Edited on Aug 27, 2005 by jake_lex]



well, like i said, no doubt the guy that said it shouldn't have, but fox putting a pic of the house. dunno on that one. people make mistakes, and this is probably someones really bad judgement call. my point about cbs is that they were all too eager to put that shit on the air, when beforehand they had plenty of time to make sure it was accurate. with fox, this guy just said it on live tv. kinda get what i'm saying? not so that fox didn't make mistakes, but at least they didn't plan all this ahead of time. (if so, someone probably would have caught it before it went live). make sense? probably not, but eh. lol smile

(p.s. sg, your smiley insertion sucks the big one!)

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

AUG 27, 2005 08:18 PM

Yeah, except CBS has absolutely postively nothing to do with this. You bringing it up was just a red herring.

goodcore

goodcore

Tustin, CA
July 2005

AUG 27, 2005 09:22 PM

occasionally? the no spin zone is far from that.

JekyllAndHyde

JekyllAndHyde

Baltimore, MD
April 2005

AUG 27, 2005 10:09 PM

"That was the best information we had at the time."

Really, that excuse seems to be used a lot these days....

JohnClement

JohnClement

Silver Spring, MD
January 2004

AUG 28, 2005 09:34 AM

fstop said:

jake_lex said:

fstop said:

holyfuck said:
The information was given out on a live broadcast. It seems to me that this is the fault of the person whose terrible judgement it was to announce that information. Though I do wonder why fox has apparently not run a retraction, I hardly think they're the only network who would behave this way.



whoa! logic! good to see, it's so scarce around here sometimes.

bad on fox for not airing a retraction, unless they did and the people in this thread just didn't see it. still, let us not forget CBS and the late, great, dan rather!! woohoo! a true douchebag.



They should have dumped him, or at least had the anchor step in and say "You shouldn't give out the address on the air."

Not only did they not do this, they ran a satellite photo of the house on their website, so you'd be good and sure to know where to go.

And I'm not sure how what CBS did excuses this. CBS fucked up, true, but I don't recall them giving yahoos the address to go kill a terrorist for Amurica like Fox did. What is the journalistic purpose of airing the address? I don't understandt hat at all. CBS's story, while wrong, at least has a journalistic reason for being aired.

Or just one other thing: if you're going to give the address, how's about making sure that the guy you say living there still does? How hard can that be?
[Edited on Aug 27, 2005 6:53PM]

[Edited on Aug 27, 2005 by jake_lex]



well, like i said, no doubt the guy that said it shouldn't have, but fox putting a pic of the house. dunno on that one. people make mistakes, and this is probably someones really bad judgement call. my point about cbs is that they were all too eager to put that shit on the air, when beforehand they had plenty of time to make sure it was accurate. with fox, this guy just said it on live tv. kinda get what i'm saying? not so that fox didn't make mistakes, but at least they didn't plan all this ahead of time. (if so, someone probably would have caught it before it went live). make sense? probably not, but eh. lol smile

(p.s. sg, your smiley insertion sucks the big one!)



So this address just fell into the gentleman's lap during the broadcast? He didn't have time beforehand for verification? Fox didn't think to ask him what he would be discussing during the segment?
If you think that this was anything but a vindictive act to fire up the viewers, you really don't think. My response above to the "assisting the police" line really says it all.

And Subrosa's right, way to try and throw in the CBS red herring. The event has no relevance in this context.


[Edited on Aug 28, 2005 by BillHaverchuck]

xLusTx

xLusTx

Madison, WI
August 2005

AUG 28, 2005 10:35 AM

Absolutely ridiculous. They should have fired him for that one. A very unprofessional move on FOX News' part.

life_returns

life_returns

Oakland, CA
April 2003

AUG 28, 2005 10:51 AM

damn terrists.

Manchester_Black

Manchester_Black

Edmonton, AB
March 2004

AUG 28, 2005 11:16 AM

holyfuck said:
The information was given out on a live broadcast. It seems to me that this is the fault of the person whose terrible judgement it was to announce that information. Though I do wonder why fox has apparently not run a retraction, I hardly think they're the only network who would behave this way.



How is it that they can cut the mic or cut to commercial when someone gets into a tiff with Bill O'reilly and he can't shout or tell them to shut up loud enough, but when someone starts giving out an address that would obviously incite people to take matters into their own hands, they not only let him finish, but provide pictures so their less literate viewers would have a better chance of finding the place?

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

AUG 28, 2005 11:18 AM

fox news = terrorist organization.

FreakPirate

FreakPirate

Canada
November 2002

AUG 28, 2005 11:18 AM

Invincible said:

How is it that they can cut the mic or cut to commercial when someone gets into a tiff with Bill O'reilly and he can't shout or tell them to shut up loud enough, but when someone starts giving out an address that would obviously incite people to take matters into their own hands, they not only let him finish, but provide pictures so their less literate viewers would have a better chance of finding the place?



I always chalk it up to Fox being 100% full of shit. But that's just rational Canadian me talking.

FreakPirate

FreakPirate

Canada
November 2002

AUG 28, 2005 11:20 AM

And hold on a second... isn't there something terribly illegal about all of this? I mean... if I give out someone's home address or phone number on SG I'd be in a lot of shit. Shouldn't Fox be backpeddling like mad right now?

JohnClement

JohnClement

Silver Spring, MD
January 2004

AUG 28, 2005 11:36 AM

FreakPirate said:
And hold on a second... isn't there something terribly illegal about all of this? I mean... if I give out someone's home address or phone number on SG I'd be in a lot of shit. Shouldn't Fox be backpeddling like mad right now?



No, it's public information. It's just incredibly irresponsible. I suppose there's a possibility Fox could be held culpable if something happened to the family.

Shal

Shal

Los Angeles, CA
October 2002

AUG 28, 2005 04:05 PM

BillHaverchuck said:

FreakPirate said:
And hold on a second... isn't there something terribly illegal about all of this? I mean... if I give out someone's home address or phone number on SG I'd be in a lot of shit. Shouldn't Fox be backpeddling like mad right now?



No, it's public information. It's just incredibly irresponsible. I suppose there's a possibility Fox could be held culpable if something happened to the family.




Something did happen to the family: harrassment, intimidation, property damage.

They should be suing the socks off Fox News right now.

Bastardo

Bastardo

Boston, MA
January 2005

AUG 28, 2005 04:15 PM

s5 said:
fox news = terrorist organization.


Eerie. Remember during the Rwandan Genocide? When radio DJ's would direct mobs to Tutsi hiding spots? I got the heebies for a second.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next