CNBC probably hasn't bothered to take this claim off since updating the profiles of ex-employees isn't exactly a high-priority at any company. Gasparino is probably responsible for this lie rather than Fox or CNBC although it's telling that Fox chose to change his bio to say "was submitted for the Pulitzer" rather than the more honest approach of deleting it entirely from the bio.

Nothing about Gasparino? Fox more than likely did no more than report what they heard from Gasparino. I'm hardly a Fox fan, but it seems Fox owned up. The pathetic Mr. PheaNiques makes attempts to divert. No bias from this Obama hater who has all the credibility of Gasparino.

The issue is Gasparino has been unequivocally outed as a liar. His credibility is shot and to their credit, however belated their reporting, the media did get the information to us.

This whole article is for naught. Everyone knows that Fox News (yeah, news . . LOL) is simply entertainment for dimwitted hillbillies. After all, if ANYONE at Faux Noise is remotely qualified for a Pulitzer nomination, than Bill Maher would be at the top of such a list. (Bill wouldn't accept the nomination, anyway. He told me so, and laughed uncontrollably at the prospect of a Fox "journalist" being nominated. Then again, Bill knows the Faux Noise Network is just that, FAKE. He gets alot of attention poking fun at the knuckleheads pining over the likes of Hannity, O'Really?, and the silly blond-hair dweeby geek sissy on the Fox and Friends show).

If they lie about this, overtly and repeatedly, what ELSE are they lying about?

Everything, the beauty part is FOX news is actually a branch of FOX entertainment and can claim any story is just that.

There is a question on all Fox job application forms and it requires an answer to validate the application: 13a) "Can you repeatedly lie with a straight face?" You better be able to answer "yes".

Bluelake,

Did you read after the headline or did you start your post after the first one. You seem to ignore the fact that the guy has been misrepresenting himself since the time he worked for NBC, parent company of MSNBC.

There is a question on all Fox job application forms and it requires an answer to validate the application: 13a) "Can you repeatedly lie with a straight face?" You better be able to answer "yes".

AND: 13b) "Are you willing to contribure endlessly to any GOP SuperPAK"

OK, if you start out with Wall Street Journal, go to News Week Magazine and than windup at Personally Fox News your career is on the downhill. Got it. Personally, I don't waste my time on Fox (if you want to call it) News.

You seem to ignore the fact that the guy has been misrepresenting himself since the time he worked for NBC, parent company of MSNBC

And the key phrase here is "worked for NBC". Wonder how long this phony will continue to work for Fox?

Dust covers with wrong information o god tell the President!
You see where I went with that ,pretty funny

What a joke! People have been calling their submissions "nominations" since the first CV. Get real, People. Fox News is undermined by their own reporting of rumors as facts and by its right wing editorializing. The fact that they willingly use the same marketing ploy as the "reporter" did only shows that they are Capitalists making money on entertainment, on viewers. Luring in those viewers any way they can think of is par for the course. If you have a brain, you see it for what it is. If you've been on Nutrasweet all your life, there's little hope for you anyway. If you just need an education but live in an RGA state, I am sorry. Either vote the Repugnicans out or move.......

don't need no stink'n fake Pulitzer prize nominee...tell me the stink'n fake news...

Fair and Unbalanced, that's FOX.

Wilmer Furman "Fox News: liars of the first water."

In case you didn't notice, NBC reported it first - perhaps FOX merely believed that NBC had 'vetted' him when THEY reported him as a Pulitzer nominee.

It's interesting that NBC didn't report the lie when he worked for THEM.

The processes are completely different between the Nobel and Pulitzer Prizes.

The Pulitzer Prize "nominees" are selected from "entrants." An "entrant" is anyone who sent in a published article, a brief (1-page) bio, and a check for $50. People can, and do, enter themselves. Some publishers enter everyone with a byline while others enter only those they consider have a real shot at it. But the bottom line for the Pulitzer Prize is that being an "entrant" is meaningless. Only four are chosen by the Pulirzer Prize Committees in each category --- one winner and three nominees. This is a way of honoring runners up which is especially important when the decision was close. The names of the winner and the nominees are always immediately published and posted online.

The Nobel Prize is very much different. The Norwegian Nobel Committee is responsible for the selection of eligible candidates and the choice of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. The Committee is composed of five members appointed by the Storting (Norwegian parliament). The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded in Oslo, Norway, not in Stockholm, Sweden, where the Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and the Economics Prize are awarded. The candidates eligible for the Nobel Prize are those nominated by qualified individuals --- members of national assemblies, governments, and international courts of law; university chancellors, professors of social science, history, philosophy, law and theology; leaders of peace research institutes and institutes of foreign affairs; previous Nobel Peace Prize Laureates; board members of organizations that have received the Nobel Peace Prize; present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; and former advisers of the Norwegian Nobel Institute in the case of the Peace Prize. Only a winner is selected. The statutes of the Nobel Foundation restrict disclosure of information about the nominations, whether publicly or privately, for 50 years. The restriction concerns the nominees and nominators, as well as investigations and opinions related to the award of a prize. So anyone who claims to be a "nominee" and did not win within the last 50 years is most likely a liar.

Why is this such a big deal? Obama has as much right to claim that he earned the Nobel Prize...

Mr. PheaNigues:

RE: your post #1.1

If you want to know, with your implied wisdom and intelligence, I would think that you could research the topic and do some mundane due diligence to arrive at a truthful answer. For starters, these two prizes, Pulitzer and Nobel, are considered by most professionals to be THE two highest honors bestowed on an individual(s) for their professional accomplishments in their respective fields of work. You take it from there!

Yea, and we have Peace Prize Novel recipients that never should be awarded.

You do know that one of the people that the award is named after, was a war profiteer. Not to mention, it is awarded for more than just efforts in peace.

I do not attribute this guy's resume inflation to Fox. What I do attribute to Fox are the most dishonest bunch of imbeciles on cable TV. Sean Hannity, Jonah Goldberg, Cal Thomas and every other lying sack of @!$%# on Fox; now they set the standard. The ultra right wing crowd wants to excuse Fox by broad brushing every other cable news outlet with the old, "they're all a bunch of liars". That's just crap. 80% of what you hear on Fox is just plain made up garbage and distortions. If this guy is truly just an out and out liar then he will surely find a home on Fox.

@Bluelake

80% of what you hear on Fox is just plain made up garbage and distortions

Correction- 80% of what you hear ABOUT Fox is just plain made up garbage and distortions.

Which is why it is so ridiculous hearing you folks bitching. You are guilty of the thing you accuse them of doing; do you guys really not understand what a hypocrite is?

Libeerals condemn Fox as usual, Conservatives condemnNBC as usual. But both are guilty of embellishment of news stories as usual, editing to suit their agenda as usual. But to say that Fox lies on everthing shows someones bias and bigotry as usual. All news agencies report current events as a matter of fact ....yes and including Fox noise...so get over it your bigotry and bias or shut the @!$%# up.

I know there are politics involved in prizes.

But the only people who think a Pulitzer Prize or Nobel Prize aren't worth something, have no concept of worth.

Because if it were true that they weren't worth something, you wouldn't have a-holes on either side of your suck ass political parties lying that they have one.

So come on in from the outside, to the world that actually exists. You can actually despise a person for things they say and stand for, without having to have a hissy fit over everything they do.

Or you know, live up to your standards, and start getting a list of what the people you cry over eat. Stop eating that food. Because you know, everything they do is bad.

@Mr.PheaNiques-0000001: "Yea, the Pulitzer and the Nobel Prizes...I'm not exactly sure why anyone would want to claim to be considered for a nomination"

Wow! What a cop out.

Gasparino is a liar with muddy feet. Fox is a fine place for Him. A journalistic mudhole of magnificent proportions.

I wonder if people here really believe MSNBC tells the truth and Fox tells lies? I see truth and lies at times from both sources (as well as pretty much any other news outlet). To think that "my side" is always truthful and the "other side" is always lying just seems like a fairly ignorant way to look at the world.

Who didn't expect this story to bring out yet again a horde of Fox haters? Like Bluelake, and every of the others, they talk about lies, LIES, and &*(^$#@*& LIES!!!! Yet they never seem to identify news lies, and only seem to identify opinion personalities they disagree with. Hannity, Goldberg, and Thomas, among others on Fox (though this is a story about Fox BUSINESS) News, are purveyors of opinion, not of "news". Jon Scott, Shepard Smith, Bret Baer, Martha MacCallum, Jenna Lee...these are the news personalities on the channel. It doesn't matter too much to me that Andrea Mitchell was caught in a lie just the other day since I take her for her word that she didn't do the editing on the Romney quotes in order to make him appear detached, but it nevertheless was a lie told by a news personality on MSNBC.

Do you Fox haters still watch/read MSNBC despite the obvious lie told? Of course you do. I hope you watch other news sources too, and even occasionally read. But the point is that you let your hatred for anything that challenges your worldview decide for you what is, or isn't, a lie. What pathetic people you really are.

THis is just a big misunderstanding . As of the midddle of the last decade CHeney/Bush modernized the language (by removing all relationship betweeen words and factual content i.e. "THere are WMD in Iraq waS NEVER MEANT TO INDICATE THERE WERE ACTUALLLY wmd IN iRAQ. iT WAS A way of saying, "We are going to invade Iraq and neeed a plausible excuse." THe same with this guy, He wasnb't actuallly claiming to be nominated. What the claim ment was, I would have liked to be nominated for a Pulitzer prize. ." SO alll you libraturds back offf and rest easy this guy has found a home where he belongs.

FOX is soooooooo living in alternate reality....can't even trust them for this stuff. That's why no one of sound mind believes that they are #1. Too many people have no news other than what Fox spins on TV. Their all antenna people.....

Investigative journalism my ass. A month ago an author is forced to revise his book sleeve because he misattributed "entrant" as a "nominee". Now it's like shooting fish in a barrel. All this boils down to is semantics: sure the WSJ probably threw his name in. Was it accepted ("nominee")? No. YAWN.

I find it interesting that so many are castigating Fox for this issue. This type of thing is not unusual (sadly) nor is it only this one news outlet.

Shoddy reporting and outright lying by reporters, even well established and respected reporters like Dan Rather have reported issues based on their biases or just to get ahead.

CBS - Dan Rather Reports on G.W. Bush record based on fake National Guard Records. CBS and Rather were both warned to verify these records but did not heed the warning. (Of course they are not biased, right?)

New York Times - Jayson Blair wrote hundreds of fabricated stories for the NYT. Blair had often pretended to be in places where he was not and invented information from unnamed sources on major stories, from the Washington sniper case to the Iraq war.

WABC, New York local TV station - Heidi Jones weather reporter, reported to police a that she was raped, turned out to be a made up story.

MSNBC - Dylan Ratigan on several occasions has been called out for his lies, such as claiming that at Tea Party rallies they were calling for killing blacks. Again he was found to have fabricated or rather manipulated video at an Obama Rally, claiming that white supremacists showed up with guns. After scrutinizing the video it was found that in fact is was a black man that was holding the gun he claimed was brought in by white supremacists.

CNBC - Business Tech journalist Jim Goldman was found to have intentionally fabricated a story about Google privacy infringements. He was found to be in the employ of a PR group associated with Facebook. He now works for that group, Burton Marston.

So to pin so-called lying journalists strictly on FOX News is not only ridiculous but clearly points out the closed minded attitude of those on the left. I watch and read as much as I can from both sides, and make my decisions that way. It is apparent the hypocrisy of the leftists on this board that although they tell those of us on the right to think for ourselves and not be led by FOX News, they in fact are being led by the predominantly left wing controlled mainstream media.

MSNBC will get a lot more traction out of reporting about Fox News employees than it will reporting about their Nielsen ratings.

Other than the fact that this guy happens to be working for Fox currently, and, as all media outlets do, publish bios of their contributors, Fox had absolutely nothing else to do with the story. NOTHING!! And yet, the liberals act as if Fox is in some huge conspiracy.

Funny how when a liberal network is caught red-handed purposely editing tapes for malevolent purposes, presenting forged documents as being authentic, or any number of other incidents I could name, the liberal camp suddenly becomes so quiet that you can hear crickets chirping.

And yet, they act as if this business reporter, who basically falsified a prize nomination on his resume, is the scourge of the earth. Not to mention, liberals apparently completely ignored the part of the story that indicated that the practice, while certainly not truthful, is in fact, fairly common in the publishing industry.

You never have to prove how stupid liberals are, they do a great job of that on their own.

Fox News and it's people are experts at stretching, bending, massaging, and stroking the truth. In this process supervised by countless lawyers, they have achieved mastery unimagined by great propaganda masters like Mr.Goebbels.

NYMike,

Alfred Nobel funded the awards posthumously and did so because of an overwhelming guilt over the destruction his invention of dynamite had wrought. His family manufactured canons and ammunition but the idea of profiteering on war implies more than selling your product to the military. If Nobel was a profiteer every scientist to invents something and makes money on it and a government uses is to kill people becomes a profiteer. That would include virtually every major manufacturer of scientific goods, airplane parts, metals fabricating, steel production, computers, chemicals, petroleum and food in the world.

jkh

Janet, you pathetic leftist, Fox is a CABLE/SATELLITE station. People with simple antennas get none of it. You must pay a monthly fee in order to get a service which provides the channel to you. Perhaps it is you living in the alternate reality? You did read the story, right? About where Gasparino worked for WSJ and for CNBC? You did read about how this puffery is rampant, so rampant in fact that the Pulitzer organization has to ask people to stop doing it? You did read some of the posts as well, did you not? Like one just above which catalogues not just one, or two, but several examples of leftists in the media doing far worse, people you likely still regard as honest and fair?

Here is a question you might not like, but it's a fair one...Which matters more to you, a reporter who puffs up his CV where such puffery has no effect at all on your life, OR, a reporter, let's call her Andrea Mitchell, who presents to her viewers a falsely edited video which had the purpose of denigrating one political candidate (the one you undoubtedly oppose)? If you say the former, then your opinions are of no use to anyone. If you say the latter, as I think you should, then you ought to be furious not with Gasparino, but with MSNBC and Mitchell and NBC. Are you? I mean, they LIED to you, on purpose, in order to color the news and to concoct a preferred outcome, didn't they?

So the dust jacket of one of Obama's books declares him the first Kenyan born member of the Harvard Law Review and it gets ignored on this site but they want this article up as a top story? How anyone can think an NBC company has any integrity is beyond me. And before you ask, I know I'm on their site, reading their "news". I do it for the comedic value. For the record, I'm not excusing Fox, I'm calling the NBC companies out on their blatant hypocrisy.

To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.

T Roosevelt

In fairness, this is only a Fox Business issue because this guy currently works there. He's just a liar and made the same claims CNBC.

Just to be clear, just another example of FOX "FAIR and BALANCED" (NOT).......getting caught with their pants down.

Dear Mr. Dedman,

Ok, this guy Gasparino is a liar. OK, I get it. . . . However, as much as I hate FOX (anything), can you PLEASE call out CNBC for publishing the same phony bio of Gasparino AND NOT correcting it as FOX has tried to do?

If you're going to put a jacket on FOX, make sure your own house is in order first.

Seriously! It took me one minute to look this up. I wonder who gave you the title of "Investigative Reporter?" Looks like the Pulitzer is out of reach for you at this moment in time.

@Bluelake

Do you realize that he worked for CNBC in the past... don't trust ANY news.. they are ALL liers.

Wilmer - "Fox News: liars of the first water" Did Fox News air doctored 911 tapes when reporting the Zimmerman case? Did Fox News air doctored tapes of an interview with Sandusky, then submit them for use in his trial? Did Fox News uses edited tapes of a Romney speech to fit their story line? Did Fox news commission forged documents to use in a story to try to change the outcome of an election? Is Fox news to blame for CNBC using THE SAME BIO when this guy worked for them? Are you simply a biased, Fox News hater? (BTW -so you don't have to think, NBC did the editing on the 911 and Sandusky tapes, MSNBC did the editing on the Romney tape, and CBS used the forged documents)

Lol! Faux News IS the bottom of every story!

. . . .work for liberal politicians

As opposed to what? Working for pole-up-the-@rse, narrow minded, self-righteous, corporate tools? Humm.

Have you ever noticed how childish Fox trolls are? Anytime you mentioned their beloved propaganda network they say "but. but, but what about MSNBC?"

MSNBC swung left in response to a niche needing to be filled after years of Fox being the right wing propaganda network, Just because they give a more left of center perspective doesn't put them in the same status as a purely propaganda spreading fake news outlet like Fox. MSNBC will at least come out against liberals and progressives when they do something wrong, where as Fox will spin the story or simply not report on it no matter how many babies one of their beloved conservative "politicians" rapes. Fox is the true definition of propaganda, they use Bernay's book as a training manual for their talking heads. Here are the 14 rules they follw when reporting on any story..

1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.

2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. "liberals," "hippies," "progressives" etc. This form of argument - if it can be called that - leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.

3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you're using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It's often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.

4. Rewriting History. This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is Palin's mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they'll often speak with such authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.

5. Scapegoating/Othering. This works best when people feel insecure or scared. It's technically a form of both fear mongering and diversion, but it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category. The simple idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems, you can then go on to a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and b) subvert responsibility for any harm that may befall them as a result.

6. Conflating Violence With Power and Opposition to Violence With Weakness. This is more of what I'd call a "meta-frame" (a deeply held belief) than a media technique, but it is manifested in the ways news is reported constantly. For example, terms like "show of strength" are often used to describe acts of repression, such as those by the Iranian regime against the protesters in the summer of 2009. There are several concerning consequences of this form of conflation. First, it has the potential to make people feel falsely emboldened by shows of force - it can turn wars into sporting events. Secondly, especially in the context of American politics, displays of violence - whether manifested in war or debates about the Second Amendment - are seen as noble and (in an especially surreal irony) moral. Violence become synonymous with power, patriotism and piety.

7. Bullying. This is a favorite technique of several Fox commentators. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it seems to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the guest into submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The bully is then able to interpret that as a "win."

8. Confusion. As with the preceding technique, this one works best on an audience that is less confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated thinking, thereby giving the user's claims veracity in the viewer's mind.

9. Populism. This is especially popular in election years. The speakers identifies themselves as one of "the people" and the target of their ire as an enemy of the people. The opponent is always "elitist" or a "bureaucrat" or a "government insider" or some other category that is not the people. The idea is to make the opponent harder to relate to and harder to empathize with. It often goes hand in hand with scapegoating. A common logical fallacy with populism bias when used by the right is that accused "elitists" are almost always liberals - a category of political actors who, by definition, advocate for non-elite groups.

10. Invoking the Christian God. This is similar to othering and populism. With morality politics, the idea is to declare yourself and your allies as patriots, Christians and "real Americans" (those are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges them as not. Basically, God loves Fox and Republicans and America. And hates taxes and anyone who doesn't love those other three things. Because the speaker has been benedicted by God to speak on behalf of all Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral. It's a cheap and easy technique used by all totalitarian entities from states to cults.

11. Saturation. There are three components to effective saturation: being repetitive, being ubiquitous and being consistent. The message must be repeated cover and over, it must be everywhere and it must be shared across commentators: e.g. "Saddam has WMD." Veracity and hard data have no relationship to the efficacy of saturation. There is a psychological effect of being exposed to the same message over and over, regardless of whether it's true or if it even makes sense, e.g., "Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States." If something is said enough times, by enough people, many will come to accept it as truth. Another example is Fox's own slogan of "Fair and Balanced."

12. Disparaging Education. There is an emerging and disturbing lack of reverence for education and intellectualism in many mainstream media discourses. In fact, in some circles (e.g. Fox), higher education is often disparaged as elitist. Having a university credential is perceived by these folks as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In fact, among some commentators, evidence of intellectual prowess is treated snidely and as anti-American. The disdain for education and other evidence of being trained in critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is why they are so viscerally demeaned.

13. Guilt by Association. This is a favorite of Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart, both of whom have used it to decimate the careers and lives of many good people. Here's how it works: if your cousin's college roommate's uncle's ex-wife attended a dinner party back in 1984 with Gorbachev's niece's ex-boyfriend's sister, then you, by extension are a communist set on destroying America. Period.

14. Diversion. This is where, when on the ropes, the media commentator suddenly takes the debate in a weird but predictable direction to avoid accountability. This is the point in the discussion where most Fox anchors start comparing the opponent to Saul Alinsky or invoking ACORN or Media Matters, in a desperate attempt to win through guilt by association. Or they'll talk about wanting to focus on "moving forward," as though by analyzing the current state of things or God forbid, how we got to this state of things, you have no regard for the future. Any attempt to bring the discussion back to the issue at hand will likely be called deflection, an ironic use of the technique of projection/flipping.

@BodyDouble

Just because they give a more left of center perspective doesn't put them in the same status as a purely propaganda spreading fake news outlet like Fox.

Left of center, ROTFLMAO!! Dude MSNBC is so far left they don't even know which direction the center is anymore. The mainstream media is left of center, to describe MSNBC as such is like saying Rush Limbaugh leans right.

You're right about them not being in the "same status" though, FoxNews does actually have a couple actual news programs whereas everything on MSNBC is driven by so-called "opinion journalism".

And I've got to say, the fact that you actually took so much time to bitch about Fox is quite humorous. Do you have all of that saved so you can just cut and paste it every time FoxNews is mentioned or do you actually sit ranting and raving as you type it all out? LOL

"Dude"? what are you twelve? I guess the GOP has to recruit their trolls young now before they grow a brain.

MSNBC is not even leftist enough for me, they are still part of the corporate owned media, if you want REAL NEWS that isnt controlled by the same corporate criminals that control all the network and cabel news then you have to go to RT online or one of the other many NON-CORPOPORATE OWNED news outlets that you can find on the internet, that is why they GOP and their corporate overlords want to censor the internet so they can control all the information we get. More and more people are waking up from the trance Television has had them under and the powers that be do not like that, it scares them that they might lose control of the masses.

Well I am off to work, I will leave the boards to the trolls and the unemployed republicans (same difference).

Really Bill? Andrea Mitchell? She is so very conservative she even attended Ayn Rands funeral. She is married to Greenspan. She is every bit as conservative as Sarah Palin. You lack of info is astounding.

Yep Murdoch is desperately trying to split News Corp into two ---- a worthless company that contains all "journalistic efforts" and an "entertainment company." Fox News would be a part of the "entertainment company" and not the "journalistic efforts." But there is considerable that News Corp is collapsing --- the "journalistic efforts" --- the newspapers --- are hemorrhaging money and the likely financial penalties in the UK phone tapping and political influence scandals will almost certainly far exceed the worth of the "journalistic efforts." If Murdoch is able to split the company, one set of shareholders will be screwed and the British "tax man" will get nothing. But if he is not able to split the company, Fox News will likely be sold to the highest bidder and will cease its right-wing editorial policy and move to a more centrist CNN-like position in order to retain advertisers.

Either way the right reaps what it sowed.

Have you ever noticed how childish Fox trolls are? Anytime you mentioned their beloved propaganda network they say "but. but, but what about MSNBC?"

And calling a someone a "troll" isn't childish ? Interesting how you equate NBC's continued posting of pictures of Trayvon Martin as a 12 year old as factual news, and accuse FOX of not reporting stories about conservatives, when stories about the administrations misdeeds are continually swept under the carpet. Not to worry though, Body Double, you aren't alone in your tunnel vision. It's amusing how liberals like to call conservatives "hillbillies", but in the same breath, link them to corporations and the 1%. I suppose it's the Jeb Clampett syndrome, and all these folks were "shootin' at some food" and struck oil...doubtful. These people worked hard to get where they are, and earned what they have, and rightfully object to having it "redistributed" to the liberal couch potatoes. It actually sounds as though you libs are jealous. Talk about deflection, you guys have the market cornered.

@BodyDouble

"Dude"? what are you twelve? I guess the GOP has to recruit their trolls young now before they grow a brain.

Sorry DUDE, but I'm not GOP. This may come as a shock to you but not being on the extreme left does not automatically make someone a republican.

MSNBC is not even leftist enough for me,

Right because they can't find enough "journalists" who are so far left they don't even pretend to be unbiased so they have to use some of their air time for unrelated filler. I'm sure you'd prefer propaganda 24/7 which is why you crying about FoxNews is so friggin funny!

Well I am off to work, I will leave the boards to the trolls ...

So are you leaving or not? Make up your mind.

What does Faux and a sticky turd have in common? No matter how hard one tries, a shine cannot be put on it.

@bodydouble - You make a good case against Fox News. But while MSNBC isn't as blatant about their political affiliations, they do a good job of subtly slanting a story. Plus like most news organization, they tend to sensationalize the unsensational. The bottom line is always money, produce stories that will grab the most amount of viewers/readers. That's why there's so many "People" type stories being told in place of real news. And that's not even really their fault, selling news to the lowest common denominator equals trashy stories about Lindsay Lohan's (sp?) latest antics. When was the last time you read a story about the AIDS epidemic? It's still there, lots of people are still suffering and dying, but it's old news and people generally don't care.

But back to political based stories, I've noticed that most news organizations will slant a story (either subtly or blatantly) to whichever party they support. Even negative stories about Obama reported on MSNBC, will very subtly place key words throughout the story to "soften the blow". They will go out of their way to make an excuse or valid reason for Obama's mistake or unpopular decision.

I'm no fan of Fox or Republicans, but I also see all News organizations and politicians for what they really are. Which are groups of people whose only real concern is MONEY and POWER. Democrat or Republican...generally speaking (there are some rare exceptions) politicians of either party only get nominated and elected if they play ball with the REAL powers that be: Big Oil, Big Pharma, the Military machine, and of course Big Banks. All politicians and to some extent news organizations are just puppets doing their masters' bidding.

Meanwhile they got people like you and me constantly fighting and arguing over which side is good and which side is evil, like a goddamn football game, the democrats and republicans are laughing, hand in hand, all the way to the bank.

Body Double,

That is a great list of propaganda tools which have been used since the beginning of language. I didn't notice one of Fox's favorite ones: demonizing the media. If you can develop distrust in the traditional news sources, then the repeating the big lie ad nauseum end of the formula becomes so much easier. Karl Rove is an excellent student of effective propaganda tools. It is so sad that Americans are dumbing down enough to be influenced by that POS.

Well bodydouble, I am a rather well read person and this is the first I have ever heard of this list. It is no surprise that you are so familiar with it. This looks more like the leftist platform than that of FOX, so it is no surprise you are so familiar with it.

1. Panic Mongering. “This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment.” From lying about the right trying to destroy education, and kill your grandma to getting us into war, the left has continually used scare tactics to forward their socialist, bug government platforms.

2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. I find bodydoubles listing here so hypocritical. Again this is pot calling the kettle black. The left continually goes “after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity.’ Of course bodydouble gives us no example just blathering accusations. On the other hand I can give you quite a few that the liberal media and their sheeple followers like bodydouble have and do use. In the Presidential race between Kerry and Bush the libs constantly claimed that Bush was dumb/stupid/idiot, you name it every epithet they could come up with to demean Bush’s intelligence. The fact is Bush had higher scores in College than Kerry and being former Air Force myself I know what it takes to fly our modern jets, something Bush excelled at in the Air National Guard. Here is another one, the whole wrong spelling of the word potato by Dan Quail was used to berate and belittle his intelligence. Come to find out the teacher in the classroom that Dan was in was the one that mis-spelled the word on the card that Mr. Quail had held up to the class, but of course that was buried in the press, and I have talked with so-called intelligent people that still thought it was he that wrote the word wrong.

3. Projection/Flipping. Wow talk about being blind and hypocritical. Bodydouble or whoever he is copying and pasting from says… “This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you're using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It's often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.” Again, wow, now this is another example of the pot calling the kettle black.

This is just the first three of his 14 points, unfortunately I don’t have the time to respond to every one because I don’t have the luxury of copying an pasting propaganda, but the thing that stuck out in my mind was that these are EXACTLY the tactics I have watched the left use in my nearly 60 years on this earth and this is nothing new. I watched the denigration of a great patriot, Barry Goldwater; during the 1964 elections where the left used EVERY ONE of these points to baffle the public into believing Goldwater was some sort of “trigger happy, war monger”, their words. However if people bothered to actually hear or read his speeches at that time rather than believing the out of context leftist media hype they would have realized he was a pacifist and wanted out of Vietnam. In fact he warned of the escalation and waste of American youth lives but the lying left did their nefarious best to discredit and disparage that man and everybody even slightly to the right. LBJ was elected and escalated the war jut as Goldwater had warned, which kept the people busy while he implemented social program after social program to fight the other war - the “War on Poverty” which in fact didn’t get people out of poverty but locked them into welfare ghettos that we now have third, fourth and fifth generations of families dependant on Daddy gov. Progressives my a$$ you idiots are turning the U.S. into a fiefdom.

The right hammers Obama on accountability but never takes any accountability on their own !!!

@Just Shaking My Head

Quit shaking your head so hard, after reading your rant I am convinced that you are brain damaged and couldn't distinguish the truth from fiction with a truth map and an extra set of eyes. Did FOX shut down their comments section, I'm wondering why all of the FOX rejects are commenting on this blog. Apparently you've confused the tactics of the right with the tactics of the left. I seem to remember all of the fear mongering you mention taking place after 911 by the right as justification for invading countries that had nothing to do with 911, restricting our rights in the name of national security, and labeling anyone that dissented as unpatriotic. Nice try slick, but you have blueberry pie all over your face....

????

My copy correctly says "your." Did they change it?

Ahhhhhhhhh, "timing" is everything! LOL!!! :)

@Barbara Adams Jackson

Another Faux News Wannabee - which includes all of their College Dropouts - O'Rheilly and Shawn Hannity

These people are the Poster Boys why we need Higher Education

Ummm, hate to break it to you but this guy was one of the stars on CNBC, it was a big deal when Fox lured him away a couple years ago. As much as you lemmings would like to believe this sort of thing only happens on Fox it's just not true, like most of the drivel you types bitch about.

Beats the hell out of the MSNBC trolls and the liars in the White House.

Ohhhh Barbara, you just got busted for lying..........please either do you research or quit lying, not sure if you are lying or just ignorant.

"Another Faux News Wannabee - which includes all of their College Dropouts - O'Rheilly and Shawn Hannity

These people are the Poster Boys why we need Higher Education."

You are correct on Hannity, but you are soooooooo off base on O'Reilly. Let me break the news to ya...

O'Reilly higher education....

Marist College.............BA

Boston University........MA

Harvard University......MPA

Please, if you intend to take part in an intelligent conversation, try telling the truth.

They all laugh at you backward ass liberals all the way to bank...so do they need education...stop to go to school when making millions..yeah right..crack head

OReilly a drop out? He has completed courses of study at a few colleges including Harvard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O'Reilly_(political_commentator)#Early_life_and_education

Why are all you FOX rejects commenting on this page anyway, FOX start censoring your lunacy?

@Elliot - go ahead and cite Wikipedia, where almost anyone can post and edit. I can see why you idiots are wrong most of the time.

Bill Dedman, straight from the school of yellow journalism.

I refer to Fox "News" as Comedy Central II.

The comparison of Fox News to Comedy Central is doing Comedy Central a disservice. The Daily Show and Colbert Report are more credible news sources in my book.

Nice try, liberal trolls. You have probably never sen a Fox News report and are just doing the lefti knee-jerk. Get some integrity and actually do your research before stupidly repeating your party line.

This is so interesting that the tidy righties spend all their time on MSNBC. LOL

Whats wrong with MSNBC? Do tell.

This is after all, just another news network...right?

@Whatever-4

What happened dim bulb, the Redneck Chronicle shut down it's comments section and you have to come over here to post and now you're upset that your BS doesn't receive the same platitudes that you get from your retarded brethren over at FAUX NOISE?

They were trying to copy the lead of the NY Times and it's reporters I guess.

Love any takedown of faux news, but, Bill, you're not going to win any prizes with shameful grammar such as:

If you're mother says she loves you....

Exactly. Just imagine what typos and grammatical errors you'll see in print if the Repubs get their way and gut the education system.

Since he's a product of the liberal education system, a good gutting appears in order.

Now to examine Dedman's background. You know you just opened a big can of worms here, don't you?

Why would we be sitting on dust covers?

wow full of typo's sorry have a nice day:-)

Did you actually READ the article, or are you just using the standard "talking point" bullets?

(sheeple... how original!)

This idiot worked for a division your "elite" source (CNBC) and made this claim BEFORE he worked for Fox.

Thanks for proving what an "intellectual" you are.

LOL. Of course. Got lots of rain in Florida yesterday. That darned Obama.

I have a neighbor who is a dedicated Teabagger. He wears a Swastika armband and a white hood. He just loves Fox Noise. Can't get enough cynical, negative outlook on everything. A real anti-union, "I'll work 100 hours for meager wages and no benefits so that my CEO can get his mega-bonus and 'job creator' tax break" type of corporate tool.

So I am supposed to believe I am a Hillbilly because I also watch Fox News. I don't usually bother replying to dimwits but spreading your lies is no different then what this Journalist did. Writing stories about your neighbor's makes you liable for your statements. Anyway the Noble Peace Prize nor the Pulitzer Prize mean anything anymore, it's been awarded to some real loosers. LOL

Then why is it such sensational news on MSNBC now??

Is the claim in some way different now than it was when made by CNBC??

Did CNBC retract ??

a Pulitzer nominee has clout...i figure he did this to...get more money... get the lead to bigger storys...etc...i was nominated best of troll once...now...can i get and at'a boy...

"nothing new here" is an apt name for you. There is nothing new about your type wanting answers handed to you while refusing to use the tools given to you, including not reading the article.

1) Just because something is mentioned on a news site, does not make it "sensational"

2) Use the link Bill provided to see for yourself!

We are not your parents, so we don't need to feed you like you are a baby.

boom...

Mr. Bill does not need you clarifying his position - or does he ??

He did not answer my questions.

I would expect the SAME STORY to hit the wiresTWO YEARS ago when these same claims were made by CNBC about Gasparino.

At the very least, I would expect some explanation as to " why now and not then " - "i.e. the circumstances of the claim then were this and NOW they are this ".

Further I would have expected CNBC to retract - THEN.

CNBC reminds me of John Kerry in this instance - I was for it before I was against it.

Thank you for proving exactly what I wrote. As I mentioned in my post, you have an issue with reading and are unabashedly lazy.

Your questions were answered in the article proper. How many times do you need something answered? Shall I get a hammer to force the information into your skull, or will that require a jackhammer to penetrate the density?

Since you need to be babied, I will provide you the link that was provided in the article, which you will undoubtedly fail to open once again.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27827767)

Since you are a bit slow, this link answers the following questions from your post:

Is the claim in some way different now than it was when made by CNBC??

Did CNBC retract ??

The first question is answered by the date at the top of the page, and the second is answered in the video and in the text.

Do you need us to wipe your bum as well?

You will forever be known as the user who needs to be spoon-fed information that was already spoon-fed to you. You are the epitome of "nothing new here."

Oh, and for the love of God, don't ask that same question yet again. It's been answered several times now.

he was not nominated... it's what they call an inconvenient truth...in the P.C. world of reporting...

So why are YOU reading MSNBC?

My mom submitted me for the Pulitzer. That's going right on the old resume!

I am a million-dollar lottery nominee!

and...i'm a dialing for dollars candidate...