Fox Goes Pravda Again
Tweet
More fake footage. Fox News uses 2008 campaign footage of Sarah Palin and claims those are the crowds for her book signings. It’s a sign of the contempt Fox News has for its conservative viewers that they push this stuff.
8 Responses to “Fox Goes Pravda Again”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America

No big surprise. The idiot network trying to prop up the new head moron. Liars no doubt (fair and balanced means bow to the right).
The queen bee of the trailer hive must be protected at all times
Looking forward to seeing the Daily Show tonight (or maybe tomorrow) to cover this. Jon Stewart owes his entire career to Fox News and this kind of behavior.
OW, it’s not “Fox going Pravda”. It’s Fox being Fox.
Same shit, different day.
Well, news stations often use archive images to save on having to film new ones, so that’s only actually bad if it was done purposedly to deceive. With the amount of publicity this book got, I wouldn’t be surprised if a crowd was actually representative of the attendance. Of course, it says nothing about the quality of the book or its author, and it doesn’t mean that using old images like that isn’t cheap.
No, sorry. This practice is completely unacceptable when it is applied to a circumstance like this one. It is reasonable to use file footage to depict, say, a physical location to help connect a story with the person or, perhaps, the organization that the story is about in the audience’s mind (for example, if the anchorperson was delivering a story about the recent $1.4 billion settlement reached between the California Attorney General and Wells Fargo Bank, there might be a brief display of file footage showing the building where Wells Fargo is headquartered), but it is never acceptable to use file footage of an event that took place in the past and that has no relevance to or connection with a subsequent story about a specific current event. It is even less so when the main theme of that story is of the “the size of the crowd at the event that this report is about was so extraordinarily large that it clearly demonstrated that there is an exceptional level of support for this person or this cause that the event was centered around” kind, especially when the file footage used provides a nearly perfect visual affirmation of that narrative.
It is reasonable to use file footage
Not only that, but they usually have a caption at the bottom of the screen to let the viewers know what they are watching is file footage.
It’s one thing to run file footage in the background, like wallpaper. All newscasts do that. That’s not what Craig Jarret did. He specifically said that these images were “just coming in” – deliberately misleading, or the umpteenth “mistake” along these lines at Fox. So they’re either liars or incompetent.