FoxNews.com changes AP March story

[Null Pointer]

Compare the CNN and Fox versions of the same AP story. Note that the Fox website contains the phrase

"Authorities no longer give formal crowd estimates but suggested the crowd was over hundred thousand strong. "

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118081,00.html

Where CNN, MSNBC, Boston.com and others are carrying the AP story in it's original form:

"Authorities no longer give formal crowd estimates, but various police sources informally estimated the throng at between 500,000 and 800,000 strong."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/25/abortion.protest.ap/index.html

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Fuck FOX

[freetobegay]

2. Say that fast 3 times

Talk about a tounge twister!

[BlueEyedSon]

26. How about 100 times?

[artistforpeace]

3. YES!!!

Holy Sh*t I just came on to write about this. Not only that but to tell everyone to email AP about it.

Here is my email I sent along.

Yes I would like to inform you that www.foxnews.com is misquoting an AP article on Thousands March for Abortion Rights By ELIZABETH WOLFE.

Specifically the point in the article listed here:

"Authorities no longer give formal crowd estimates, but various police sources informally estimated the throng at between 500,000 and 800,000 strong."

On http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118081,00.html this part of the AP article is quoted:

"Authorities no longer give formal crowd estimates but suggested the crowd was over hundred thousand strong."

I believe this misquote is being done deliberately to misinform the public and should be brought to your attention as the originators of the article.


I sent this to [e-mail] but I would love to send it directly to Elizabeth Wolfe if I knew her email.

Please everyone write AP about this, I check many other online news orgs and none of them are misquoting!!!!

[Null Pointer]

Done!

Thanks!

[Zorra]

9. I wrote to them. n/t

[fearnobush]

21. Done.

Too bad GOP whore medias don't sue each other that often.

[Scairp]

4. Like, what else is new?

You actually think that Faux News would report this story accurately? Dream on.

[rumguy]

5. very funny - they are scared to death of the truth

fuck fox

[durutti]

6. Holy shit...

You really need to publicize this!

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. Are they legally allowed to change the AP info???

[durutti]

15. And still attribute it to the AP?

I doubt it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. They are AP members

Yes, they can.

[Zorra]

7. Wow. Good eye. Thanks.

What scumbags. I'm printing it out, along with the same article from other publications, in order to use it to convince people that Fox News deliberately misinforms the public.

[ezee]

8. Whats even worse

is that at the end of the march, I watched it on c-sapn, they stated that the count was 1million 1hundred thousand. Why dont we hear that from the news broadcasters....

[LoZoccolo]

10. Welcome to DU!

Good catch! :hi:

[salinen]

12. Estimating crowd sizes

is very easy to do. We use the most basic math to estimate the entire lithic distribution in archaeological work. A + or - of ? percent is to correct for people taking a piss in the porto potties.

[Norquist Nemesis]

13. FOX changed (corrected) it!

Check the article link! I think I'm going to faint!!!

[wyldwolf]

22. still reads the same to me

over 100,000

[Norquist Nemesis]

30. You're right! I misread

when I saw the "500,000 in 1992". I guess I can pick myself up off the floor. LOL

[artistforpeace]

14. You know....

This has made me realize that I should do this more often. For some reason I just knew that Fox was going to downplay the numbers and that is why I went and looked. When I realized that every online news organization was quoting the same AP, it hit me that Fox was editing someone else’s article.

We should do this more often at DU. I mean even for the most mundane AP articles. Just keep pounding to AP that Fox isn’t quoting accurately, maybe it will get in to the press at some point questioning Fox’s journalistic integrity.

That is the “war” that should be waged on them. Everyone knows this is happening but they let it slide. Maybe we shouldn’t let it happen anymore with AP articles.

[FizzFuzz]

18. Great Idea!!!

How about an easy permanent link on DU homepage with email addresses and stuff?

[FizzFuzz]

16. I clicked on the FOX link

The whole online article on the March isn't bad, even included prime quotes from Hilary, Kate Michelman (NARAL pres), and others. Yes, the "over 100,000" line is there. Otherwise, the article seemed pretty free of spin.

BUT, ya know what? There's a pop-up that comes with the FOX link--huge picture of Satan and white on black lettering that says "president bush supports medical liability reform. Shouldn't you?" with a link. Felt like a slap in the face after reading the article.

Geeeeeee, fair and balanced. right.

[No2W2004]

17. Duplicate

I'm a dumb ass :evilgrin:

[FizzFuzz]

20. dammmmm

I didnt see that. I retract my semi-favorable remarks.

[No2W2004]

19. Fox changes story

after doing a search, it looks like they changed the original AP headline which says: "Women Rally for Reproductive Rights" to "Protesters Rally for Abortion Rights". There is no AP story on ANY other news site that matches the one on Fux. Try it yourself: http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Protesters+Rally+for+reproductive+Rights&c=&ei=UTF-8

[powergirl]

23. FOX USES THE "WAR ON TERROR" CAPTION ON ANY IRAQ STORY

But, the other stations, use the caption. "War in Iraq." Those Fox people are such doofuses. Also, O'Leilly was bragging last week about how the Fox war analysts were so smart because Fox only hired "pro war" analysts. Why don't they just call themselves the RNC news channel. I hate them so very very much.

:mad:

[Norquist Nemesis]

31. They also consistently state "homicide bombers" n/t

[CompassionateLiberal]

25. Another example falling under the catagory of:

“It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.” - Joseph Goebbels

[abcdan]

27. Fox changed the first paragraph, too.

AP story from Fox:
Abortion-rights supporters marched in large numbers Sunday, roused in this election year by what they see as an erosion of reproductive freedoms under President Bush and foreign policies they say hurt women worldwide.


AP story from CNN:
Abortion-rights supporters marched in the hundreds of thousands Sunday, galvanized by what they see as an erosion of reproductive freedoms under President Bush and policies that hurt women worldwide.

[aquart]

28. CBS said hundreds of thousands.

[aquart]

29. NBC says "massive rally"

And I couldn't catch the next quote but I did hear the word "million."

[BattyDem]

32. a hundred thousand ... yeah, right

Hey Fox ...

[dpibel]

33. But, but....it's TRUE

The crowd was "over a hundred thousand strong." Just because they didn't say how much over, you get all sad.

Jeez.

Nitpicker.

"Tell all the truth / but tell it slant." -- Emily Dickinson

[atre]

34. The funny part is that the editting is so poorly done.. terrible grammar

"was over hundred thousand strong"

One is singular and requires an indefinate article to demonstrate that.

[markomalley]

35. Looks the same to me:

I pulled up the page you referenced and it said:

---

The rally stretched from the base of the U.S. Capitol about a mile back to the Washington Monument. While authorities no longer give formal crowd estimates, various police sources informally gauged the throng at between 500,000 and 800,000 people. That would exceed the estimated 500,000 who converged on Washington for the last major pro-abortion rally in 1992.

---

OTOH, the San Diego Union Tribune has the quote you mentioned in it ( http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20040425-1047-womensmarch.html ), but it was from a story published at 10:47 AM.

[dusty64]

36. American Pravda,

propaganda at its best.