I'd just go with incompetant... I mean...

Though honestly, who knows.  CNN and MSNBC might just make as many mistakes and just don't have as many people botherin them.

And then there was the study who showed those who watched Fox News were least likely to get the facts right:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/12/16/1615218/Survey-Shows-That-Fox-News-Makes-You-Less-Informed?from=rss

It was also found to be the most biased:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=137

Next up, showing how other networks are just as bad.  Shoot, might as well justify what Fox News bungles by say, "nah nah, others do the same. nah nah nah!"

In short, a variation on this a comment found at the bottom of this article:

http://gawker.com/#!5411282/fox-news-to-go-error free-in-2010

I hear they're just going to hire some ********* old man to scream "both sides do it" at the camera every time some Republican gets caught in a lie.

But, instead, it will be, "both sides do it" whenever someone dares to question the competence of Fox News, or lack of it.

(Edit comment)

they are, except to the majority of republicans in the USA.

Is that really a screen capture from Fox? That's terrible if it is.

And if these are genuine mistakes, then they're terrible journalists. Still, some mistakes may be genuine, but I'm convinced that the make a lot of these "mistakes" on purpose.

One example of a mistake that I thought could have only been done on purpose was in a Bill O'Reilly  interview with Richard Dawkins, during which Bill O'Reilly insisted on calling Richard Dawkins "Mr Dawkins" whenever he used his name, which he seemed to use in every other sentence. I think just about everyone who knows who Richard Dawkins is knows that he goes by either "Professor Dawkins" or "Dr Dawkins", heck, even Calling him "Richard" or just "Dawkins" would have been fine. I find it incredibly hard to believe that O'Reilly, a man who must know who Richard Dawkins is fairly well, would make the mistake of calling him Mr Dawkins and then repeat his mistake over and over again. I think it's more likely that he called him "Mr Dawkins" to try and distort how the viewers see him.

Actually you should take a look at those studies.  At least one of them was specifically flawed or designed specifically to get the result it did.

Read the Questionaire 

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_quaire.pdf

If you can't figure out based on the questions why it got the result it did... I don't know what to say.

Never heard of "FAIR"  I find it funny though that they are comparing guest lists with CNN yet seem to have avoided using HLN and MSNBC.  Based on it's ridiculious headlines though.... I wouldn't give it much credit.

I mean, one of their headlines is "NYT Nails Donald Rumsefeld!"... by asking him if it bothers him that some people call him a war criminal.  I wouldn't exactly trust a site that giggles at somemone asking rumsfeld what he thinks about the people who call him a war criminal.

If your trying to make a point... it would be helpful to not site extremly biased sources that kinda help disprove your point.

Haha yeah.  The thing with that Screencap is that he was a Holocaust survivor... and he won a Nobel Prize.  So for some reason they combined them together to be "Holocaust Winner.".

I wouldn't say calling him "Mr Dawkins" is a mistake.  Disrespectful?  Probably, I dunno... he seems to call a lot of people Mister, I think... I dunno I've never actually seen his show.  Not sure if it's just the people he doesn't like or everyone.  I'd never expect anyone to call him a proffessor though.  It'd end up more misleading then "mr." because he's usually talking about stuff that isn't in relation to his degree.

Shit like O'Reily are supposed to be like that though.  It's the same on CNN and MSNBC.  Anything after 6pm is specifically "Opinion programming" or whatever the name of it is.  They aren't actually journalists or anything.  They're opinion columnists on news networks.

Graphic errors happen everywhere too, it's the nature of 24/7 news. You've got to keep in mind... with 24/7 news you are basically reporting on shit as soon as it happens... and you need graphics.  The wrong footage is less defensible, but considering it's likely the same media team that's trying to make all these graphics, it's not that unlikely they would screw up like that.

This stuff happens everywhere, it may happen more on Fox, but I've never seen anyone actually do any credible research on it, because any research focusing on news networks tend to be hack jobs.

I tend to stick to CNN because they usually seem the least biased, though lean a little left.  Though with their main guy being replaced by the HLN news guy... it's not sounding good.

LMFAO. That's hilarious. But nothing will ever top what MSNBC did to Niger Innis.

Aw... that beat this one.

Oh, and as for cases of using the wrong footage... and going with it specifically for their own meaning.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/busted-msnbc-caught-dishonestly-editing-town-hall-gun-footage/

MSNBC using footage of a black guy that doesn't show his race, and then talking about the "racist white people showing up with guns".

Is  it intentional?  Or is it someone just going off the footage they saw?

Or other wrong footage storys.

http://www.tvsquad.com/2009/11/20/msnbc-also-apologizes-for-using-wrong-palin-footage/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/may/19/20030519-110144-7123r/

MSNBC decided it would get ratings by attacking Fox News from the left.  CNN was the first to jump into the 24 hour news, then Fox comes along, then MSNBC hits, and struggles, so they decide to spin from the left.  In all this, when a network is know to have an agenda and is biased (Fox is that) it is hard to tell when they make a legitimate mistake or one spun from an agenda.

On this note, anyone want want to show ANY blunders Fox News had that would be considered favoring a liberal perspective?  I don't mean here attacks against libertarian or paleoconservative the way they have with Ron Paul, but one that say had listed a Democrat as a Republican that was in a scandal (they did the opposite with Foley),  ot others.  If someone can't show ANY, what does that say?  So, there is the challenge.  Go and find ONE.