I'm split because honestly I've seen them have so many production blunders that it is fairly buyable that it was an honest mistake. But at the same time, ehhhh... not totally convinced.

However, most news networks use stock footage all the time, so many times they'll be talking about the war and use footage from years ago. Usually they're good about labeling it so, but I don't know how much the anchors are informed of what the images are before the announce them.

I'm not a fan of Fox News, and I don't know if it was a mistake or an attempt to decieve. But what I am sure about is that news integrity in this country is really going down the drain, and cable news networks are leading that charge.

I agree with mydiadem. The news intergrity in this country is really going down the drain. They're just not that reliable anymore. Only part of their reports are true. You shouldn't have to weed out the news to get the real news.

It's terrible when you have to double check other websites and new stations to get down to the possible truth.

i agree too mydia!

I agree with you guys! All "news" programs on TV should clean up their act, but, IMO, FOX is the worst offender. They have said so many things that just aren't true (where as CNN's method is to give significance to things which aren't significant to amp up the "drama", like political parties are characters on The Hills or something).

That is why I love NPR. Completely dry and boring, but at least they focus on facts, and the interviewers are knowledgeable enough to ask intelligent follow up questions. When a Senator or Representative misrepresents the truth, call them on it!

agreed jill!

my favorite news show is actually "world focus" on pbs. but my local pbs replaced with bbc news! arg.

anyway, i still watch it online.

i listen to bbc often in the car (love that satellite radio!) and its so dull sometimes i worry i'll fall asleep. but then i remind myself that it's good to be sans drama and hysteria!

I'm curious to see if concern will be great enough to warrant looking into more public-service broadcasting options in North America.

Ah... how did I know that a teaser introduction would earn a spot at citizen 4.0, so predictable.

NPR is surely dry, but still skewed. Sorry. I think fox and MSNBC are pretty dead even in bias. Sorry but when you purposely leave the head out of a shot just do you can say racism against the president, when the guy was black, doesnt get anymore blatant than that. A little teaser introduction, really get over it.

What's teasing about it? It is what the story is about. Why so negative, Hain?

I am in agreement with Mydiadem: But what I am sure about is that news integrity in this country is really going down the drain, and cable news networks are leading that charge.

It was a teaser introduction to the story that is in dispute. i am the one who is negative? Look what you are all complaining about!

Hain, you are more than welcome to go find a story about MSNBC doctoring stories and images.

Everyone who has commented said that all network news is pretty shoddy and unreliable, not just Fox.

and even if it's just the teaser that was misleading, it's still "news". nothing should be false about "news"

But where do you draw the line at something sinister and an honest mistake? There were a lot of people at the book signing. So it is not like the video is entirely pointless. I take it as an honest production error. Because they make the teaser before they even have the footage available to them, then they fill it in with the correct footage. But I think rush to judgment of FOX news seems OK with you but judge someone else with a complete obvious intention to manipulate like the MSNBC clip and we are the ones overreacting. Geez.

Snarky, I totally agree that nothing should be false about news, but have you ever made a mistake, they owned up for their error at least, unlike MSNBC>

I don't find NPR to be biased, quite dry in a lot of ways, but objective. I love BBC in the car though it is so boring, I know what you mean about falling asleep.
In general, isn't it sad when you have to worry that your news is coming across with bias? Its hard to know what the real truth is even for very basic topics.

Having worked in news, I know this isn't an easy mistake to make.
All video is labeled with dates and location, writers either look at the video or at least a shot sheet when they're working on the story.
Not doing either is the same as not gathering the facts before writing the story.
If you don't have current video and are writing to file video, you mention that seamlessly "Palin, who you'll recall drew huge crowds like this on the campaign trail..." and no one feels deceived.

this is also one of many "mistakes" that have occurred recently.

My husband has spent years working as a videojournalist for the news (CBS and NBC). They often use old footage from video files until they have new footage to insert. I'm not defending Fox News (I don't like them at all!) but I'm saying this very easily can be an honest mistake.

Sometimes the network will call and say we need a teaser within 5 minutes. You have 5 minutes to write a teaser, find/edit video, add sound, and put it all together. All while working on gathering footage and data for the actual story. Your average 1 minute news blurb about something takes anywhere from 1-3 hours to shoot/edit/produce.

One of our local news channels still shows footage of the old police cars everytime they talk about crime/police. They've had new police cars for 3 years and yet they still use old footage.

Stephley - I totally agree, they should have used that wording since they didn't have actual footage for the teaser.

I did it for 20 years Yoga, it's just not hard to check the video date & location, no matter how quickly it's called for.

The only way I can see this being an "honest" mistake is if, and I know this is the trend, they have interns or younger (cheaper) writers and video people and no one takes the time to impress upon them the importance of the factual aspects of their work.
But since they've been caught repeatedly in recent months, that should have been taken care of.

True - the error with Fox news isn't that they used that video for the trailer though (which is what people have a problem), it's that they didn't clarify that it was old video to start with. And that's the editor's fault for not writing that in.

I look at it this way, often when the news wants to do a teaser about something coming up that they don't have footage for yet, they use old video, whether it be a visit from the president or the circus in town doing a show that day. The key is to make sure you put either on the video or have the reporter say that it's old footage as in "this is a scene of the president during his last visit to our capital", etc.

People have a problem with them using old footage of palin crowds because they feel Fox News did it to try and make it seem more people were there than actually were. That can very well be. But the use of the video in the trailer can be used honestly with a simple statement of "old footage". Some of the news stations my husband has worked at was staffed by idiots who would make mistakes like this all the time - not because there was an intent to deceive, but just shoddy work. It drove him nuts!

I see teasers ALL THE TIME that have the wrong video. And I mean often. I dont feel it was meant to deceive and dont get what all the hullabaloo is about. Fox APOLOGIZED about the error, and are investigating to see who made the error so the ycan handle the situation. So seriously, all this is is biased bullsh*t. I saw no one care about the MSNBC OBVIOUS deceit. So really all your complaints are moot. (other than yoga, you seem to know what you are talking about)

But Fox has made the wrong video error at least three times in three months. It isn't hard to find who made the error, scripts have the writer's name on them and there are lists of who cut what video. It takes mere minutes to track that.

That i agree with Steph. They know exactly who made the error. I hope Fox is reprimanding whoever did it - they are not very good at their job.

Was it an anchor reading the teaser? Usually anchors just read what's in front of them and don't have too much involvement in the production of a story unless it's a special interest piece during sweeps. God how I don't miss sweeps months.

ugh. sweeps month here yoga. last night was a investigative piece on what kind of cold medicine you should pay if you're sick. riveting.

People have no clue about sweeps too - I had no clue about it until I married someone in the industry. My husband left the industry last year and I've already forgotten which months are sweeps (don't watch the news). Sweeps are November, August, February and May right?

Panic about the flu/cold season always works! My favorite is teasers like "What you don't know about houseplants that may kill you" or stuff like that, ha ha.

Yeah, I was going to ask what Sweeps were, but decided to google it because I thought it was something most people knew about!

"What you don't know about houseplants that may kill you" or stuff like that, ha ha.

Or "Why your child could be dying right now... tune in tonight to find out why."

you'll notice it in may and november when all your local anchors do "investigative" stories about things nobody cares about. last may they did a three-day series about stolen lawn ornaments. i wish i was kidding!

That's amazing, Snarky! Don't knock their very important, informative and educational work! For shame!

Haha - it's so true. It's like they think if they put everything and anything that occurs that month on air, they'll get better ratings.

One of my favorite stories was "lawn forking" - evidently somebody stuck plastic forks upright in somebody's yard - like hundreds of them and it became quite the news story.

For some reason I thought august and february were too. The station my husband worked at would have those four months a year blacked out and nobody could request off those months and everyone had mandatory on call. So that when that reported stabbing comes across the scanner, they could call my hubby at 3 am and tell him to get to the scene, only for it to be an irate wife who called the police on a false charge.

I do not envy anyone who works in the news industry, especially local news. You're overworked, underpaid, and replaceable.

i think you're right yoga, i think they do have february and august sweeps. i think those are more for local channels though, since the national programming is usually in re-runs in august. one of my interns works for a local news channel here. too bad he's not in today, otherwise i could get more info

or maybe a scoop on what's going to be on tonight!

well, to be fair more people scrutinize Fox than any other station. So I don't think it's out of the realm to think that other networks could possibly be making the same mistakes but because they aren't as polarizing and their ratings aren't as high, no as many people are noticing.

And how do we know more people scrutinize Fox than any other station? There are media watch groups on both sides of the political spectrum, so I don't accept that as a given.

Because its not just media watch groups- its bloggers, talk radio, etc.

If I were to ask someone to think of a media watch group, I would think the first one to come to mind is Media Matters. They are probably the most prominent IMO. And clearly far to the left.

Also, there haven't been any documentaries about CNN's bias, there aren't entire websites devoted to BBC bias.

You may disagree, but to me its pretty clear that Fox gets scrutinized the most.

Maybe they get scrutinized the most because their reporting is just that much of a joke? They tend to go for the shock/scare tactics more than any other new station.

And why shouldn't they be scrutinized the most? Fox news has the highest ratings. They're the guys on top.

Yoga - They are sensensationalist yes, but I think its debatable if they are worse than any other station.

I think the more you report the news in a sensational/biased manner, the more you invite scrutiny and criticism. The more bland and objective the news is, the less likely people are going to start scrutinizing it.

But I do understand that sensationalism sells and gets ratings. People watch because they either like that they're being told what they already believe or because they can't believe that there are people that believe this sh*t. But a viewer is a viewer as far as ratings are concerned.

"They have said so many things that just aren't true (where as CNN's method is to give significance to things which aren't significant to amp up the "drama", like political parties are characters on The Hills or something). "

I completely agree about CNN, Jill! I can't even watch it anymore because they are so about pumping up the drama. And all the stupid crap to promote their online participation like reading tweets over the air. I don't give a fig what Jake in Atlanta thinks about the space station. I want actual coverage of what is actually going on with the space station.

The Daily Show did an excellent segment recently about how much CNN sucks lately.

Fox news = what a joke