Fox News responds regarding mislabeled parties?

A pleasant, if damp, Sunday morning in south Florida.  I wake up (thanks to my 7-year-old son urging me to get up, because "it's already almost 7:45!") and switch on the ol' laptop.  I check out my blog ... and I've got a comment.  In fact, it's a comment from someone claiming to be a Fox News graphics employee, chastising me for being critical of the propensity the folks at FNC have for conveniently mislabeling party affiliation (e.g., making Mark Foley a Democrat or switching up Senate candidates in Rhode Island).

Character limit ... gotta go below the fold ...

The commenter says "a majority of the members of the [Fox News] graphics department are either apolitical or democrats, as most artists are."  Of course, he/she has already accused me of being "off base, hate-filled, and ignorant."  Already, I'm questioning whether the person really works for FNC - those sound like boilerplate wingnut ad hominems to me.  But, let's give our commenter the benefit of the doubt.

Granted, I have to question the judgment of any left-leaning individual who goes to work at Fox News, although I guess a gig's a gig, integrity notwithstanding.  But the commenter tries to make the mislabeling sound like a simple mistake, even when (as with Foley) it was done repeatedly, with plenty of opportunities over a period of hours to correct the error.  Once is a mistake ... more than that is deliberate obfuscation of the facts.

This is probably nothing more than a creative troll, but let's assume for the sake of argument that the person really does work for FNC.  Do you buy the explanation that these are merely "mistakes," and "mistakes happen?"  Is it really possible that someone working for Fox News, even in the graphics area, would not keep up at least on a cursory level with politics, as the commenter claims?

I don't mean to castigate the commenter for actual mistakes he/she may have made.  My contention is that someone higher up is calling the shots, and they're either intentionally making things up (like mislabeled parties), or they're just imcompetent.  Either way, it hardly embellishes Fox News' claims to journalistic integrity.

To conclude, is it possible that an actual member of the Fox News graphics department would refer to "ORielly" [sic]?  Perhaps the commenter's nom de blog says it all: "Badspeller."

•  Serious, or a troll?

  I'm also wondering if you think my commenter is seriously an employee of FNC or a troll.

  Please throw me a little mojo while you're at it, if you would like.  ;)

  by Sinfonian on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:13:43 AM PDT

  •  Capture the IP of the commenter and traceroute it

    It's amazing how often people do things requiring anonymity from non-anonymous IPs.

    by klondike on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:20:59 AM PDT

  •  What's the difference?

    between a Fox News worker and a troll?

    by JohnGor0 on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:24:52 AM PDT

    •  Ummmm...

      The troll is an amateur and the FNC worker is getting paid?

      Was this a trick question?

      by homogenius on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:06:23 AM PDT

      •  I was wearing my sarcasm hat

        which you obviously couldn't see through the internets.

        by JohnGor0 on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:27:19 AM PDT

        •  And I was wearing my snark hat

          which you obviously couldn't see through the sarcasm. LOL

          by homogenius on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 09:39:09 AM PDT

    •  Hmm:

      A troll is a dirty antisocial behemoth, with a loud bellow and diminished intelligence, who eats children and lives under a bridge.

      FNC employers have comfy apartments.

      by osterizer on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:51:56 AM PDT

  •  very interesting....

    This is the first follow-up to the misleading politcal labels I've read. I was wondering if it would ever be mentioned again.

    They used the incorrect labels over several days and different broadcats, with plenty of time to fix if it wa an honest "mistake."

    I think the commentor on your blog was just some obsessed right-winger, not a FOX news employee.

    Good luck on Jeopardy!!!

    by CalNM on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:25:09 AM PDT

    •  Hmm...

      I think the commentor on your blog was just some obsessed right-winger, not a FOX news employee.

      I wonder, if FNC catches wind of this, how they would feel knowing that an "imposter" is wingbatting around trying to "defend" such partisan hackery.  What I mean is, wouldn't FNC simply want to let this entire scenario slip down the rabbit hole instead of recalling their nefarious actions to the blogosphere?  I think there might be some potential for bigger doings regarding this...you know, like forcing FNC to address this (again) and maybe even take some sort of action against the poster....may be fun to watch.

      Of course, I could just be wishfully thinking....

      by Shaking the Tree on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:37:38 AM PDT

      •  Fox and the GOP

        are completely about lying by this point. They don't even try.

        I'm sure that their response would be that there never was a mistake, or it only showed once. Just like Cheney and Bush stating they never said Iraq had nuclear weopons, when there's evidence to the contrary.

        If you ever had an argument with a "conservative", facts don't even enter the arena. Fox is all about yelling something until you change the channel, and if anything sticks, they win.

        by JohnGor0 on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:20:29 AM PDT

      •  wishful thinking

        Yeah, I don't think FOX News has any standards to up hold....

        Their mission is creation of propaganda through lies, not the reporting of facts or truthful analysis. I think they would be happy to know somebody is going around impersonating FNC and trying to knock liberals.

        by CalNM on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:39:26 AM PDT

        •  I agree with you up to this:

          I think they would be happy to know somebody is going around impersonating FNC and trying to knock liberals.

          If Faux "news" truly wants their "error" in mislabeling Foley to go away, then having someone lie about being a Fox employee and re-invigorating the dialog about it would seem counter to their goal, no?

          Granted, I am fully aware of my penchant for thinking wishfully.  ;-)

          by Shaking the Tree on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:58:15 AM PDT

    •  Yes, DAYS, not Hours

      The first graphic / mention was on Saturday. Then it was repeated at least three times on the following Tuesday. I wonder how many thousands of complaints they must have ignored in order to repeat that "mistake."

      by winstnsmth on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:41:59 AM PDT

    •  Apolitical is code...

      ...for conservative.

      Seriously. I've got conservative friends here in the UK, and they say "I'm apolitical" too. It's all about the thing they have for pretending to dislike "all politicians", such as when they say "all politicians are corrupt" when conservative politicians are caught being corrupt, or "all politicians lie" when a conservative politician lies.

      But they always vote, in the end, for the conservative candidate, because he's "the least bad of the alternatives". Spooky. What are the chances of a coincidence like that? Every time.

      And then don't get me started on the people I see online who swear they are lifelong Democrats, but who have "reluctantly" voted for the Republican candidate in every single case, ever since they were first eligible to vote. It breaks their poor hearts.

      by Del C on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:46:04 AM PDT

    •  google "fox news typos"

      like he claims to have done and see where it leads...

      by jhwygirl on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:46:19 AM PDT

  •  The reality is that it could well have been

    a mistake in "graphics", but the producers who call ALL of the shots should have corrected it and had graphics re-do the lower third.  There is a long chain of checks on what goes on the air - yes things get missed occasionally - but they don't get missed repeatedly as in the Foley case.  There are people who are responsible for accuracy on these items and it is not up the the graphics guy or gal to do that job.  Graphics people are responsible for design - not content.

    by inclusiveheart on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:05:40 AM PDT

    •  I did some googling myself

      back when this was happening. Turned out Foley was labeled as a Democrat in a lot of places, even before this whole dustup. Found a graphics company from which some pictures originated and the pictures all had "Foley, Democrat" (or some such, I can't seem to recall exactly) in the Meta-tags.

      by high5 on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 09:03:23 AM PDT

      •  I would find it really hard to believe that

        the producers in charge of "The Factor" would not have known that Foley was a Republican given the crux of the story was that he was a disgraced Republican and was endangering the Republican Leadership's hold on the Congress.

        Fox's credibility sort of went out the window when they re-ran the segment without fixing it even though they had received considerable attention for the lower third in the first place.  Lower thirds are really easy to replace in the digital age.

        by inclusiveheart on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 09:18:58 AM PDT

        •  I'm not arguing with you there.

          Of course Fox knew Foley was a Republican. I just say one out they might try is "We got it from the Graphics company from which we bought the pictures."

          The comment I made at the time I did the googling was that they might have seen the Foley scandal coming and started up a little conspiracy in advance to deflect it...

          by high5 on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 09:38:21 AM PDT

          •  Fox has their own graphics department that

            generates their lower thirds even for footage they have purchased from other outlets. Interestingly, as far as TV news graphics jobs go, it is one of the best places to work from the stand point of creativity and volume.  Because they are at Faux - the artists get to do a lot more flash and trash than they get to do at other outlets.

            Your comment confused me, but now I understand that you thought they might have bought the footage that way.  Even if the footage arrived with an incorrect lower third, the producer would have corrected the error with the segment editor.  There is a long chain of command involved.

            by inclusiveheart on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 09:53:40 AM PDT

•  For someone who

  works in the graphics department, and doesnt capitalize 'fox news' they should be looking for a new job.

  And o' how hypocrisy makes the world go round:

  Try not to make such wild conspiratory assumptions, they are very unbecoming and quite telling. And I know you're familiar with the term "stereotyping".

  cough

  you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the staff at FNC, and since your readers have no clue either

  Obviously you have never worked in television news;

  Im sure on your job if you make a mistake it is viewed by a few

  by LieparDestin on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:22:19 AM PDT

•  Anything that comes from FNC

  must be regarded carefully.  They spin more than my washing machine, and it's always to the benefit of the republi-cons.  Besides, that "Mark Foley (D)" situation, right before the election, was just too much.  They were trying to muddy the waters to the detriment of the Dems.  It was so obvious.

  Troll, sympathizer, or FNC employee, it doesn't really matter.  This person should simply take some time to do some real soul searching to find out what's REALLY important to them (and their soul).

  by Shaking the Tree on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:22:58 AM PDT

  •  The Foley thing

    was discussed on both Olbermann and the Daily Show, and I thought at the time that the lack of a response from Fox was pretty telling. Maybe they didn't want to draw any extra attention to it because it was so obviously done on purpose? Of course, Fox never apologizes for its mistakes anyway; remember that whole Malmedy thing?

    by JeremyA on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:32:35 AM PDT

    •  Telling indeed

      I agree that their silence with regard to such a blatant error was very telling.  I had said in a previous comment that I wonder if Faux "news" would really prefer to let this scenario flush down the proverbial rabbit hole, and so this person (whomever s/he is) is simply doing them a disservice.

      I see this as an opportunity to put them on defense over this and make it all resurface.  If anything, it could provide reason for the Dems to reinstate legislation regarding American Media (ala the Fairness Doctrine).

      by Shaking the Tree on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:38:36 AM PDT

•  the graphics department?

  The graphics department makes the endless waving flag in the corner.  The graphics department airbrushes pomotional photos of ED Hill and Bill O'Reilly.

  The graphics department does a lot of things.  But the graphics department does not type "D"  or "R" next to a candidates name, anymore than they would be responsible for leaving the last two letters off of "Democratic" when referring to the party.

  by fightcentristbias on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:27:15 AM PDT

  •  it is the responsibility

    of the MANAGING EDITORS to make sure the Ds and Rs are correct -- not the graphics dept.

    even if the graphics dept makes honest or intentional errors, an honorable and ethical managing editor would fix the error

    but honorable and ethical are two words i am sure are banned from the Fox lexicon  

    by distributorcap on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:01:47 AM PDT

  •  I consult and train in TV stations

    There is not Graphics Dept. A and Graphics Dept. B. There may be different people making stills and animations and others making live lower thirds (often called "Chyron operators" even if they don't use a Chyron system), but I've never been in a TV station with two graphics departments. Faux is, of course, a larger operation than a local TV station, but they all use the same methods.

    That this was deliberate is demonstrated by how long it stayed that way and how many times it ran. That doesn't even happen in small markets, the starting point for graphics operators. OK, maybe once, but not over and over. Time to stop making apologies and speculating (not singling out fightcentristbias).

    If anyone needs any accurate lower thirds made, have your people fax my people. Hmph.

    by armadillo on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 10:46:49 AM PDT

•  Ever read the crawl at CNN?

  They don't seem to hire good spellers/editors either.  Why spell things right?  Who's gonna know?  (Sorry, I sub in high schools, and yes, the students are bad, but you'd be surprised at some of the communications I've gotten from teachers.)

  Alex
  Choose Our President 2008

  by ourprez08 on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:28:02 AM PDT

•  one thing is wrong about this

  Graphics People don't write copy! Copy writers and journalists write copy -- Graphics People just implement what is given to them as copy and then AFTER it is done in any professional organization it would be proofed by a copy editor.

  So the only way to make a mistake go through like this is if two other departments (not graphics) are not doing their job.

  So either Fox hires incompetent  journalists AND copy editors  

  or it was intensional

  by smartone on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:28:14 AM PDT

  •  not necessarily an either/or proposition

    I think they both hire incompetent journalists and copy editors AND it's intentional.  The evidence for a lot of incompetence, particularly in the editor department, is too strong. As for the intentional part, all one has to do is watch cavuto to see that.  He's one of the veeps and presumably one of ailes' chief deputies.  His graphics and text should be taken as some kind of marker for fox and his program is the worst one for misleading and confusing graphics.  I think that's significant.  If cavuto wanted his program to be honest and good journalism, then it would be that way as he's one of the chiefs.  Since his program seems to be one of the worst, well it follows that he doesn't want honesty to be an impediment to the agenda of foxspews.

    by dougymi on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:54:18 AM PDT

•  second and third choices in poll

  Amount to the same thing.

  by taraka das on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:29:12 AM PDT

•  I'll give the graphics crew

  the benefit of the doubt -- but don't they have some sort of editors? I'm not going to go so far as to suggest they have "fact" checkers...this is, after all, FOX News we're talking about. But at least they should have someone taking a look at the graphics -- what if some intern, on their last day, decided to have some fun and slip in something off-color? "O'Reilly Caught With Loofa In Men's Room"? ;)

  Or maybe they consider the education level of their average viewer and figure that most of them won't be reading the graphics anyway...

  by Cali Scribe on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:32:28 AM PDT

  •  My initial reaction...

    ...after almost thirty years working for relatively large businesses, is to never discount the probability of incompetence, Fox News's political leanings notwithstanding.  And as far as purported levels of proof-reading and fact-checking, if the news is anything like most companies in the modern, do-more-with-less business world, you've probably got some high-school grad doing things professional journalists or editors used to do, on their own, unchecked.

    Not that I wouldn't put anything past Fox News, but this sounds more to me like some job that's been "six-sigma-ed" to a barely-functioning staff of over-worked individuals of the bare-minimum competence to get it done.  Just like everywhere else.

    by dsteffen on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:46:32 AM PDT

    •  HA!

      And as far as purported levels of proof-reading and fact-checking, if the news is anything like most companies in the modern, do-more-with-less business world, you've probably got some high-school grad doing things professional journalists or editors used to do, on their own, unchecked.

      somehow I don't think of fox as a union shop for copy editors.  I think there's a good chance that they use less than high school grads for those types of jobs, provided they can pay them minimum wage or less.   Well, they might be eligible for tips if they're attractive white girls and catch o'really's eye.  

      by dougymi on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:58:24 AM PDT

  •  Fact checkers?

    at fox?

    your funny.

    by Hard to Port on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:53:56 AM PDT

    •  Well, they check to make sure they're biased n/t

      by armadillo on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 10:52:01 AM PDT

•  D for Denigrate

  I suspect the D vs. R tag does something subtle in terms of color tones, framing, screen real estate, etc.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if the "R" is a hair larger than the "D", positioned slightly higher so as to look up to Republicans, and other subconscious programming.

  by other72384 on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:34:18 AM PDT

•  Mistake? Maybe - doesn't matter

  since (especially on the job) adults are responsible for owning up to and correcting their errors.

  Since Fox has done neither, it makes their repeated mis-labels look intentional.

  If the person posting the "not our fault" drivel is from Fox, it would be interesting to know if that's Fox's official response:  "We aren't professional enough to get things correct."

  by sheddhead on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:38:48 AM PDT

  •  Maybe we should take action

    and demand that Faux "news" provide an "official response".  

    "We aren't professional enough to get things correct."

    We can say that this is all we have at this point, and unless and until they counter it On The Record, we will regard this as fact.  Then we can do a diary about it, make sure it's highly recommended, and expose them as the frauds they are.

    Hahaha....let's put this back on the front burner to call attention to Faux "news's" republi-con hackery.  Let's help out Keith Olbermann's ratings by pissing off even more of "their" viewers.  Maybe they'll turn onto him as a result.  

    We could even write to individual hosts (O'Lielly especially, he's easy to rile) and demand that they respond on behalf of their network.  This could really be fun.  ;-)  Imagine the live, on-air temper tantrums this needling could yield.....

    by Shaking the Tree on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:46:08 AM PDT

    •  It would be interesting

      To somehow put out a statement that Fox has now acknowledged the mistake and they are making an apology, blaming their graphics guys. If they don't refute it, fine, but if they deny it and claim it is a troll that keeps the story up there, it could be fun.

      by high uintas on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:08:52 AM PDT

      •  Exactamundo!

        This is OUR way of re-defining Faux "news" as the hackalicious shills for the republi-cons that they are.  And we can make it go far and wide, all-the-while forcing Faux "news" to go on the defensive.

        It could be lots of fun.  Heck, look at how ballistic O'Reilly got when KO started mocking him for his antics in his WPITW segment(s).

        by Shaking the Tree on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:15:50 AM PDT

        •  So then...

          Everyone with a blog, write about this today, and call on Fox for a reply?

          At least the next time ol' Bad Speller does his (or her) search, he (or she) will come up with more links...

          That'll piss 'em off.

          by sheddhead on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:37:07 AM PDT

          •  Perfect!

            At least this could be one way to fight back.  We have come to truly utilize the blogosphere in a much more efficient way than I've seen from the "right".  If a large proportion of the bloggers out there would be willing and able to coalesce around this issue, we could be a large force against their hackery.  It's obvious that the FCC has been so co-opted that they won't do much to regulate and oversee FNC, and various doctrines etc. have been deleted thanks to Reagan (and Clinton, unfortunately).  Until the "establishment" in DC takes action, we can raise holy Hell online to keep the issue on the hot seat.

            Besides, pissing off a winger has myriad benefits.  First of all, it's rather easy to do (they're so filled with hate, it's easy to raise their ire).  It's also fun to watch them have on-air meltdowns (which could really diminish their popularity in "news" circles and among the viewership).  Thirdly, it would help to discredit them as being a true SOURCE of real news.  And that can only be helpful to our society.

            by Shaking the Tree on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:47:17 AM PDT

•  Horse shit

  How often do they make that mistake with other politicians?

  by m on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:42:22 AM PDT

•  Liberal Fox employees

  I personally know a number of arty-lefty people who ended up working at Fox for some period of time.  There isn't much choice if you think about it:  I would guess that the people who gravitate toward that field run 80% arty-lefty (if not liberal or Demcratic, often being somewhat apolitical), but Fox uses more video producers and editors than anyone else and pays fairly well too.

  sPh

  by sphealey on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:42:50 AM PDT

  •  Lefties at FNC?

    Well, like I said, I guess a gig's a gig.  But I'd like to think if I were in a similar situation - if I had to choose between working in my field for FNC and not working at all - my character and integrity would require me to remain unemployed.

    by Sinfonian on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:50:23 AM PDT

    •  Wait until you gotta pay the mortgage

      As someone who doesn't like their employer much but needed the money, I'm sympathetic to any lefties working for Fox.  I'm already job hunting again but when you live in DC and the Republicans have pretty much ruled for 16 years, the "blue state" jobs are hard to come by. I'm not saying do something illegal or really unethical, but sometimes you gotta compromise in the name of survival.

      by akeitz on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:44:45 AM PDT

      •  once again

        those people aren't responsible for content, just for presentation.  They can't change the content of what the editor or the host hands them to present nor do they necessarily want to.  

        I would think a lot of them knew that, for example, mark foley was a pub, but when cavuto's aide handed them the order for the graphic and it was wrong, they smiled and sure thing, I'll do it right away!  

        There's a concept in manufacturing unions called malicious obedience where you do exactly what the boss tells you to do, to the letter, knowing that doing it to the letter will result in a baaaaad thing happening.  I suspect something like that might be happening here too.

        by dougymi on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 09:09:07 AM PDT

•  Well, I think it's nice of Faux News to hire

  the handicapped "apolitical or democrats" and give them a job in their graphics department. I mean, you can't expect a blind or "graphically challenged" person to get the letters right on something they can't see, now can you?

  btw--SNARK!

  by Demfem on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:45:22 AM PDT

•  Faux News

  Is very purposeful in what it broadcasts. I don't believe for a second that the mislabelings were a simple mistake.

  This is the same "network" that jumped the gun in calling the 2000 presidential election. The one who had a Bush relative working election night coverage. Their blatant partiality is obscene.

  What's more obscene is that Faux keeps its broadcast license simply because it operates on cable.

  by CocoaLove on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:51:37 AM PDT

  •  unfortunately

    there is NO license for cable --- Fox News is not a broadcaster --- they are a cablecaster and therefore not required to have a license

    ONLY television stations are required to have licenses.  even the broadcast networks like Fox, CBS etc dont need licenses -- their stations do

    by distributorcap on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:58:17 AM PDT

  •  Take a gander at this lower third

    They're almost ALL like this: biased.

    

    Draw your own conclusion. Given their track record, it's a stretch the -D was just a mistake by some graphics grunt.

    by armadillo on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 11:00:22 AM PDT

•  i work

  at a television station
  and as an employee (i am not in the news dept) part of my responsibility to the station and the public to ensure the information we disseminate is accurate and correct --- factually, grammatically and every other -ly

  if i see that the crawl for our station has misspelled words, transposed info/numbers, false info or ANYTHING else that is wrong --- i am required (as is EVERY employee) to call in the mistake to the news or graphics dept and INSURE it is corrected ASAP.......

  when Fox makes the sames mistakes, REPEATEDLY and leaves them up for a long time, or puts the same incorrect info on their website - this is not an "oversight" or honest error --- it is intentional --- no serious news department would consistently mislabel party memberships during an election season and chalk it up to oversight

  and more importantly -- it is NOT up to the graphics department to have the correct info -- the news dept and managing editors are there to insure the info that goes out is correct and accurate.  PERIOD.  if they let that bad info go out they are shirking their responsibility as news providers and have really crossed the line to being Pravda or Tass.

  that being said --- while Fox likes to think they are a news organization =-- with behavior like the mislabeled parties and other assorted activities of the organization and a BLATANTLY partisan leader (Ailes) -- it is no surprise they are guilty of such unethical tactics.  and it is real easy to chalk it up to a "low level graphic artist."  I know for a fact is it someone higher up calling the shots

  what a crock of shit this organization is...but the saddest part of it all is they get away with it ---

  by distributorcap on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 07:56:49 AM PDT

  •  In the bidness too, agree 100% n/t

    by armadillo on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 11:02:01 AM PDT

•  FAUX and...

  journalistic integrity are certainly an oxymoron of the  highest degree. It's also damn laughable,too.

  by demswin06 on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:02:43 AM PDT

•  I watched fox for a minute yesterday

  they had a graphic that said the war in iraq or something like that and then the woman went on to talk about afghanistan.

  by spacerock on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:05:38 AM PDT

•  Right off the bat you had to know...

  "a majority of the members of the [Fox News] graphics department are either apolitical or democrats, as most artists are."

  by nupstateny on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:31:42 AM PDT

•  How cynical we are!

  And with good reason.

  by noelschutz on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 09:20:49 AM PDT

•  The Poster is a Troll: Proof (Almost) Positive

  It is almost certain that what we have here is a troll falsely claiming to work for Fox News.

  Television employees who type up the names and titles of guests are called Chyron operators. They typically work  in the operations departement. Their co-workers do camera, audio, lighting and other technical tasks. They are not artists who work in the graphics or art department.

  So your poster's claim seems highly improbable. It's much more likely he is an inposter who made a basic mistake out of ignorance about how television networks are organized.

  How do I know this?  In previous lives, I was both a Chyron operator and news director.  
   
  On to the substance of the matter.

  I take a back seat to no one in my disdain for Fox News. But I can't believe the recent errors are anything more than that -- errors. A deliberate policy of misidentification?  Sorry, that's just not credible. The errors errors are too glaring. And they provide too easy  ammunition to Fox critics to be deliberate.

  Fox News can -- and does -- put its thumbs on the scales.
  But this is more like a malfunctioniong scale that registers a pound for an ounce. It's so blatant everyone can see it.

  The real issue here is quality control. I'm sure the bigwigs at Fox News hit the roof at the latest screw up...and are taking steps to ensure it doesn't happen again.  

  by qwertman on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 09:59:10 AM PDT

•  I'd give them the benefit of the doubt

  the first time, but after loads of us contacted them about the mistake they continued to broadcast that "D" for days.

  Kind of looks intentional to me.

  by Lisa on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 10:05:25 AM PDT