FOX News apparently doesn't know how to archive footage

[Civil War Man]

This time they "accidentally" aired footage from a year ago

This afternoon, Fox News host Gregg Jarrett proudly announced that Sarah Palin is “continuing to draw huge crowds while she’s promoting her brand new book. Take a look at — these are some of the pictures just coming into us.” But the pictures that the network chose to display on-air appeared to be old file footage of Palin rallies from the 2008 presidential campaign. Individuals in the crowd are seen holding McCain/Palin signs, and others are holding pom-poms and cheering wildly. “There’s a crowd of folks,” an enthused Jarrett observed, referring to the old footage.

The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart recently caught Fox News’ Sean Hannity displaying crowd shots from a rally earlier this year to claim that a recent GOP health care protest drew a larger audience than it actually did. Hannity later acknowledged that he “screwed up.”

Update Crooks and Liars' John Amato writes that he is filing an FCC complaint against Fox News for its misleading segment.

Update Media Matters points out that one of the videos is from Nov. 1, 2008.

Update Fox News has acknowledged they made a “production error” and may take “serious disciplinary action” against those who in the control room who were responsible.

Just in case anyone actually thought Hannity's shenanigans actually were an honest mistake.

[General Zod]

Again? I mean we know Fox has a habit of playing old footage if they thinks it means it looks better but come on. "Production error" my ass.

[CmdrWilkens]

Again? I mean we know Fox has a habit of playing old footage if they thinks it means it looks better but come on. "Production error" my ass.

It was a production error, the interns were supposed to edit out the McCain/Palin signs just like Speilberg edited out the guns. They failed at deception...so production error.

[The Yosemite Bear]

this is fox, they live the bad management rules too, they expect the serfs to fall on their swords to protect their propaganda machine. These people have never read the prince and wouldn't know how to inspire loyalty in a dog.

[Instant Sunrise]

As common as it is for FNC to magically mislabel disgraced or otherwise unpopular Republicans as Democrats(Mark Foley, John McCain (in the primaries), Arlen Spector (before he changed parties)), this may be the first time it's happened the other way around.

[The Yosemite Bear]

techincally lieberman is a wolf in sheep's clothing, so the mistake could be an honest one.

[darthdavid]

The republicans can have him...

[Surlethe]

Knock off the spam.

[Dominus Atheos]

This is the only "fox news does stupid thing" thread on the first page, and the image doesn't deserve it's own thread.

[Sela]

Wait, I'm confused, doesn't that add up to 193%?

And the numbers (60 70 63) are such that it isn't a one-digit-off thingy either. Nor is it as though two numbers are similar and easily confused or as if you could reverse the order of two digits and arrive at an 100%.

Am I missing something, or is this epic EPIC fail? I mean - it doesn't even LOOK like 60% - it's not even half way around for chrissake!

[CmdrWilkens]

I mean I understand that if you are asking an all-inclusive question like "Would you support (X,Y,Z) for President?" you are going to get some folks answering yes to all 3 and some just to 1 so it isn't that surprising you get to 193% BUT the graphic used was just stupid to try and convey that.

[darthdavid]

I also love how the source is 'opinions'. Whose opinions I wonder?

[bobalot]

The retards who watch fox news probably consider a basic knowledge of mathematics and using pie charts correctly as elitist and a sign that you hate America.

I also love how the source is 'opinions'. Whose opinions I wonder?

It doesn't even have a fucking date. If they are going to make a bullshit poll, they should put some effort in. Then again, considering how stupid a lot of their audience is, perhaps it was an efficient use of resources.

[Bounty]

I also love how the source is 'opinions'. Whose opinions I wonder?

It's actually Opinions Dynamic (the second word is just outside the box). Google turns up nothing, though presumably it's some sort of polling agency.

As for the numbers not adding up, as said above, if it's a multi-answer poll that actually makes sense; the fault isn't in the numbers, it's in the way the numbers were presented. The chart here only shows the relative number of votes any candidate got compared to the others, while pie charts are usually used for absolute numbers.

[Edi]

While we're at it, it should be noted that Fox News has made public noises about fixing this sort of problems. This was apparently triggered by the prominent on-air display of the cover of the parody book about Sarah Palin, Going Rouge, instead of the cover of her own book, Going Rogue.

Link

[Pulp Hero]

OFF TOPIC:

I am regularly subjected to FOX during the day, so I see a lot of the vanilla news and "FOX & Friends". Its full of biased opinions and all of the normal complaints. Whatever.

Last night, I am stuck in a situation where I watched a long, muted segment of O'Reilly. I have never before watched the show, but I always considered O'Reilly to be a pompous blowhard who at least ran a professional looking show (judging from the promos and short segments I've seen on the internet).

Holy crap, last night there was all kinds of crazy shit going on. There were dollar signs coming out of O'Reilly's fingers, smash cuts to Pelosi and other politicians' photos done with the cheapo moving mouths (like something Conan O'Brian would do), smash cuts to random footage of things, O'Reilly talking while a crosshair zoomed in on a formation of North Koreans. There was so much loving awful shit going on, it looked like one of those crappy websites from the early 1990s that was filled with bright, nonsensical gifs.

Is that a program on a news channel? A FUCKING NEWS CHANNEL?!

[Dominus Atheos]

Delete plz.