Fair Question

Good Times Good Times

Active Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...7-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html?tid=sm_tw

Fox News apologizes for falsely reporting that Clinton faces indictment

"Fox News anchor Bret Baier apologized on Friday for reporting that federal investigators had determined that Hillary Clinton’s private email server had been hacked and that an investigation would lead to an indictment of Clinton after the election.

In fact, Baier said, after checking with his sources, there is no evidence at this time for either statement
."

"Baier said he relied on a single anonymous source within the FBI for his report about an alleged hack of the server: “I was quoting from one source about his certainty that the server had been hacked by five foreign intelligence agencies. . . . As of today there still are no digital fingerprints of a breach, no matter what the working assumption is within the bureau.

My question is: It says they got it from "one anonymous FBI source." How about telling us who? Since he/she lied, no obligations.
 
Last edited:

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
This doesn't mean Fox falsely reported it. It just means they prematurely reported it.
 

REVerse °

Addicted Member
I don't pay much attention to FocksNooz anyway. It is incredible, though, that when they do screw up- the haters come out of the woods with hangmans nooses and pitchforks. I see so, so, so many times in chat rooms people saying, "You have been watching too much FoxNews." They refuse to offer an alternative due to being lambasted in return... I work for a living and don't have time to vegetate on the couch and watch TV while living off the government dole.
 
Last edited:

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
I thought good reporters ALWAYS had at least 3 sources before going public.
Dear bbfreeburn:

As a journalist for more than five decades, I made certain I never ran into similar "source" problems, because I NEVER, EVER QUOTED AN ANONYMOUS SOURCE in any of my articles.

Sometimes, I would become aware of certain things, but if I couldn't document and validate something, I didn't print it. For example, in the mid-1960s, I sat in on a meeting at a prominent university, where I heard evidence that a star basketball player had actually flunked several of his courses and was ineligible to play, and that his instructors were ordered to change the "F" grades to passing grades to keep the player in school (which the professors didl. The school officials knew that I was a sports editor for the largest newspaper in the state, and they told me that if I printed it, they would totally deny it. Therefore, with only unnamed sources, I didn't/couldn't print the information, and the player not only went on to be an All-American collegian, he had a pretty good career in the NBA as well. But I KNOW that he shouldn't have been able to finish college.
 

Robadat

Member
My question is should Fox tell us who it was?
Absolutely not. To do so would discourage future whistleblowers from coming forward with information about possible wrong doing in government. There's a reason the First Amendment establishes a free Press. We do not need a press controlled by Government, never did, never will.
What we do need is a fair and honest Press in this country, but we'll never get that from any form of Government regulation.
 

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
Absolutely not. To do so would discourage future whistleblowers from coming forward with information about possible wrong doing in government. There's a reason the First Amendment establishes a free Press. We do not need a press controlled by Government, never did, never will.
What we do need is a fair and honest Press in this country, but we'll never get that from any form of Government regulation.
Too bad that ship has sailed, Rob. The leftist government owns our media and has for quite some time.
 
Top