Fox News Identified Wrong House

[moe.ron]

Fox says Loftus has been reprimanded. Loftus himself told the Los Angeles Times last week that "mistakes happen." He said, "That was the best information we had at the time."

Ever herd of confirming the information before reporting it?

Link to the Article

[The1calledTKE]

Originally posted by moe.ron
Ever herd of confirming the information before reporting it?

Link to the Article

That were all over Rather when he went with a story that was false. Rather eventually was forced to leave. Loftus should get the same treatment, but I am sure they think conservative media is more special.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
That were all over Rather when he went with a story that was false. Rather eventually was forced to leave. Loftus should get the same treatment, but I am sure they think conservative media is more special.

Rathers mistake involved the President of the United States, not just some poor guy who will probably be forced to move or be the target of some potentially dangerous reactions.

[Tom Earp]

FOX NEWS.

Do they write more fiction than fact?

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Tom Earp
FOX NEWS.

Do they write more fiction than fact?

Actually, you bring up an interesting point -- although I think I found it through the back door.

One of the more serious problems with electronic journalism these days is the emphasis on "live."

In straight news, it's live intros and tags to "breaking" stories. On cable networks like FOX, it live interviews or commentary programs.

It used to be that all reports were investigated and then written and edited. That gives several chances to catch mistakes -- although some did occur.

Today, a single slip of the tongue, or in this case some dated information, is spoken without benefit of editing or current investigation.

Add that to the alleged slanting of news one way or the other and it's no wonder the public has lost it's confidence in the news media.

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Today, a single slip of the tongue, or in this case some dated information, is spoken without benefit of editing or current investigation

It's one thing to be a few month dated, but the guy's information is three years old. Another thing, the person they were gunning for have never been accused as a terrorist or is he considered a terrorist by the government. The government just wanted to ask him questions. What ever happen to innocent until proven guilty?

[RACooper]

Originally posted by moe.ron
What ever happen to innocent until proven guilty?

The presumption of innocence doesn't grab ratings in attack journalism - with FOX or CNN (think Nancy Grace)

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
That were all over Rather when he went with a story that was false. Rather eventually was forced to leave. Loftus should get the same treatment, but I am sure they think conservative media is more special.

Not exactly the same, since one involved the President, but whatever...

This is just another case of bad journalism - Delt's right again, the on-demand journalism of today is setting networks and newspapers up to make more and more mistakes. You've got editors, producers and journalists under pressure from media execs, and it turns into a "who can get the story out fastest," not "who can get the most accurate and complete story."

[AKA_Monet]

Aside from the fact that you have the Court of Public Opinion prosecuting these innocent people...

They still DO live in La Habra, CA--or LA... And I'd say most of SoCal is very sue happy with the raising of litigants... So FOX News and the reporter will be shellin' out major duckets to these folks for the following list of items:

Defamation of property
Defamation of character
Slander
Personal pain and suffering
Civil rights violations

so on and so forth...

Add to what you will... But SoCal has a fairly decent Civil Suit system depending on your level of famousness or infamy..

Oh the lawyers barred in California will be too happy with this lawsuit... Most especially the media companies that don't like FOX--meaning Paramount and Warner Brothers (and a few others I can't think of)...

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by AKA_Monet
Slander

In the case of broadcast, I believe it would be libel. As was said in another thread in Risk Management, those are pretty hard to prove the commentator has to know the information is incorrect, use it anyway and do it with malicious intent toward the person/family.

The other stuff -- go for it.

[moe.ron]

Seems like Fox News wasn't the only channel own by Murdoch that identified the wrong man.

Link to the Sky News Story

[Rudey]

Is there a single newspaper or news source that doesn't mention their mistakes the next day?

Here's a liberal newspaper for example: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html

Nobody will ever take you seriously if you try and make mountains out of mole hills.

-Rudey

[AKA_Monet]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
In the case of broadcast, I believe it would be libel. As was said in another thread in Risk Management, those are pretty hard to prove the commentator has to know the information is incorrect, use it anyway and do it with malicious intent toward the person/family.

The other stuff -- go for it.

Thanks, I'm not lawyer literate so I don't know these terms that well...

But, hey, don't be surprised if this winds up on Judge Judy or the People's Court, too...

I'd be pissed off if someone graffitti'ed my house naming me as a terrorist and I bought the house from what I thought was legit person who actually did turn out to be someone on the watch list...

Besides housing prices are insane in SoCal, so most folks are in the fixer upper mode just to live... Otherwise, they have to live in the desert for fairly new construction. And if you are gonna do that, you may as well live in Nevada or Arizona and commute...