TOPICS:
JohnClement
Silver Spring, MD
January 2004
AUG 27, 2005 03:17 PM
monkeybuttt
Los Angeles, CA
June 2005
AUG 27, 2005 03:22 PM
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 
) 
[Edited on Aug 28, 2005 12:18AM]
AUG 27, 2005 04:28 PM
AUG 27, 2005 05:01 PM
AUG 27, 2005 06:20 PM
AUG 27, 2005 06:40 PM
effstop
Las Vegas, NV
June 2004
AUG 27, 2005 06:45 PM
AUG 27, 2005 06:48 PM
AUG 27, 2005 07:13 PM
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 
(p.s. sg, your smiley insertion sucks the big one!)
AUG 27, 2005 08:18 PM
AUG 27, 2005 09:22 PM
AUG 27, 2005 10:09 PM
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
(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]
AUG 28, 2005 10:35 AM
life_returns
Oakland, CA
April 2003
AUG 28, 2005 10:51 AM
AUG 28, 2005 11:16 AM
AUG 28, 2005 11:18 AM
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.
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
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.
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.
jake_lex
Lexington, KY
February 2003
AUG 27, 2005 03:08 PM