Fox News Channel takes out ad condemning CNN for buying al-Qaida videotapes

sfgate.com ^ | 22 August 2002 | DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer

[Darlin']

Escalating an already keen cable news competition, Fox News Channel took out a newspaper ad on Thursday criticizing CNN for changing its story on paying for al-Qaida videotape.

"CNN ... Caught?" said the full-page ad in Thursday's edition of The New York Times.

[WarSlut]

CNN paid for the tapes.

CNN lied about paying for the tapes.

CNN refuses to identify the source of the tapes.

The owner of CNN, Ted Turner, is an on-the-record America-bashing Muslim sympathizer.

Nope, no reason for suspicion here. Move along, folks...

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

You are trying to be fair. I respect that. However, I'm out for blood. Once a TV station has committed so deeply into the side of evil, it should not be trusted. Its credibility is shredded, deservedly so. Let them eat worms and die.

[rlmjr]

hmmm.... given the 'slimes' slanted history, i wonder who got the $100,000 fox paid to them.....

[gaspar]

I see, the way you put it the CNN lie is justified. You must have studied under Bill Clinton at the U. of Arkansas.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

CNN later said it had paid $30,000 for the video, blaming an internal miscommunication for the false report.

An "internal miscommunication". Yet another clever euphemism for lying coined by idiot DemonRats when they're caught red-handed.

[AM2000]

CNN was justified in buying those tapes because it's their money, not yours or mine. CNN was not, however, justified in lying about it. And now that they've admitted it, they most certainly are justified in their non-disclosure of their source - to do otherwise could possibly put their source at risk. Try to remember that we don't really know who the source is - if it's a member of the Northern Alliance or a member of the Karzai government then we don't want to jeapordize them.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Yeah, but turnabout is now fair play. Fox better be on its best behavior from now on.

No doubt. I despise CNN and I like Fox, but I've seen Fox do some pretty obvious things that are...shall we say...disingenuous. The sniper shooting at Geraldo comes to mind. (That cameraman, otherwise, has some real stones. He barely flinched and remained standing tall while being shot at. Yeah, right.)

[Darlin']

A little Clintonesque "parsing", or "spin" or .... aw heck, downright "lying".

[PatriotNow]

LOL, they just went for a 'hot' story and didn't ask any further questions...they don't know where this money went. Very irresponsible and stupid.

[Rumierules]

CNN.com has been beating a dead horse by continuously posting pictures from the tapes. Their accompanying stories include startling revealations like "Al Qaida has global reach."

[sarasmom]

"CNN was justified in buying those tapes because it's their money, not yours or mine. CNN was not, however, justified in lying about it. And now that they've admitted it, they most certainly are justified in their non-disclosure of their source - to do otherwise could possibly put their source at risk."

Would you please re-read your statement here?

Read it again, please.

I ask you to defend the obvious errors in rational thought processes evident in this travesty of news reporting.If you do not see a problem here, I can not fruitfully argue ethics with you.

[Prodigal Son]

why shouldn't Western reporters (in this case, from CNN) take advantage of that?

Well, my simplest answer would be because then you unwittingly create a "market" for these sorts of tapes.

Then what you start winding up with are tapes made solely for the benefit of getting CNN's cash. This would encourage crime. What I mean is- the child porn industry wouldn't be there if there weren't a demand. Nor "snuff films". If CNN starts paying for sensational "news" before long they'll have jihadis lined up with all manner of tapes showing the beheading of Western tourists, missionaries and just innocent "Western looking" locals etc. I wouldn't put it past the jihadis to herd a dozen people or so together and gas them for the video tape.

Then you start getting foreign policy decided on the public outcry over the video tapes of situations that never would have existed had the networks not created a market for them.

That's my answer in a nutshell. You can see yourself a lot of other derivatives based upon this same principle, but the bottom line is- the news should be about finding the truth- retrieving the facts, not paying to have the "facts" created for them.

[AM2000]

I ask you to defend the obvious errors in rational thought processes evident in this travesty of news reporting.

I never said anything about the quality of their reporting. I said - (a) they're allowed to use their money however they see fit; (b) they're allowed to keep their sources confidential. If you or I don't like their reporting, we can choose to not watch it. I, for one, hardly ever watch CNN. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna lecture them on what they can do with their money or ask that they divulge their sources.

[AM2000]

Well, my simplest answer would be because then you unwittingly create a "market" for these sorts of tapes.

You make a very good point, and I do agree with you. However, there is a plethora of information out there in that part of the world that won't ever come out without bribing someone. How can western reporters get at that information while ensuring that the market phenomenon that you describe doesn't happen?

[ExtraSafe21]

If FOXNEWS had the tapes, they would be running them 24/7. No doubt about it.

I love FOXNEWS, but for breaking news I go to CNN.

[gd124]

Sounds to me like Fox has got sour grapes because they didn't get them first.

[Prodigal Son]

How can western reporters get at that information while ensuring that the market phenomenon that you describe doesn't happen?

Well, that is a good question and one for which I have no answer.

Luckily my wife is in bed asleep at the moment and didn't hear me admit that there's something I don't know or have an answer for... ;-)

I'm glad you asked that question. It'll give me a nice mental bone to gnaw on...

[xzins]

Yuck.... just seeing that vile woman's name makes my skin itch.

"Yuck....just seeing that vile..._itch .." LOL. Just thought I translate what you really meant. :^)

[sarasmom]

" But that doesn't mean I'm gonna lecture them on what they can do with their money or ask that they divulge their sources."

You avoided my ethics question.

Why do you think they should be free to spew unsubtantiated vile under the cover of "free and impartial journalism"?

Should the "press" continue to enjoy special "free speech rights", when they eschew responcibilty?

If I prove malice on the part of the "press", can I expect lawfull corrective actions and penalties?

[Crazymonarch]

A healthy golden retriever in afghanistan is A grade flying pig category they bought or fabricated propaganda