[Grovenet] And deeper still

Wed Oct 4 14:24:06 PDT 2006

That is embarrassing for Fox. However, let's keep it in perspective. The
blogger links to two broadcasts where the text line at the bottom of the
screen mis-identifies Foley as an D instead of an R. I timed them. In one
instance the incorrect text was on the screen just under 6 seconds. In the
other, it ran just under 7 seconds. Nothing else, including the audio track,
misidentifies him. Both broadcasts used the same footage. 

The text line at the bottom of the screen with the erroneous "D" is added,
often in real time while the clips are being assembled, by someone in the
editing room pounding away on a keyboard. 

As the blogger notes, Fox quickly pulled those clips and stopped using them.
Later broadcasts using the same footage identified him correctly. 

Was it a great conspiracy by FOX and the Republicans, or as screw-up in the
editing room? Or, perhaps, an individual with a perverse sense of humor or a
cause whose work made on the air?

Who knows? 

I suggest we not make too much of it all. 

Long-term patterns are what I look for. The President's is a good example.
No mistaking his long track record for a simple error or random bit of
sabotage by a disgruntled staff member (although I suspect the President
isn't saying nice things about General Powell these days).

Besides, the story just reminds us not to believe any individual report by
any single news agency, especially when it's one "tid-bit" taken out of
context that is contradicted by every other source and which could easily
have been an 'honest' mistake. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of allnutt
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 12:49 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: [Grovenet] And deeper still

Hmm. They say it wasn't the crime that brought down Nixon. It was the
coverup afterward.  
So far two people are out of a job with the Foley scandal. 
The best lesson that I've come away with is this. If ABC has some 'overly
friendly' e-mails that they are going to make public, don't try to bribe
them into stopping the story because that just lets them know that there is
more to the story that hasn't come out yet.  

But Fox News has the quickest fix for saving Republicans.  Threee times on
the O'Reilly show, in different segments, Fox changed Foley from an R to a
D, claiming he was  a Democrat from Florida. 
http://www.bradblog.com/
If you do it three times is it a mistake?

Katie

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

BREAKING: Reynolds fires chief of staff for role in Foley scandal. New
evidence contradict Reynolds' claim that staffer wasn't involved. 
by John in DC - 10/04/2006 02:23:00 PM 

UPDATE: Guess what? The story changed again! CNN just reported that the
chief of staff, who is saying he "resigned," even though ABC says he was
fired, is now saying he resigned because the Democrats were trying to use
him as an election issue to hurt his boss, Tom Reynolds. Uh, then why is it
that ABC is reporting that you're telling people you quit/were fired because
you're being scapegoated by the Republican leadership, and that Denny
Hastert in particular demanded that you be fired? Please, all of you, keep
talking.

Reynolds just fired his chief of staff for his role in the Foley scandal,
but the details surrounding the firing suggest that Reynolds lied about his,
and his chief of staff's, involvement in the page scandal.

According to ABC News, Fordham, the chief of staff, was instrumental in
stopping Foley from being investigated further: 
  Those sources said Fordham, a former chief of staff for Congressman Mark
Foley, had urged Republican leaders last spring not to raise questionable
Foley e-mails with the full Congressional Page Board, made up of two
Republicans and a Democrat.

  "He begged them not to tell the page board," said one of the Republican
sources. First off, bull. We've been highly critical of Fordham over the
past several days, but this reeks of Fordham being scapegoated for the sins
of the House GOP leadership. One House staffer has more power than Denny
Hastert? Than John Shimkus? You mean the entire House leadership wanted to
report the scary child sex predator but a single staffer recommended
otherwise, so there was nothing they could do? Excuse me? Who's in charge
over there anyway?

According to ABC, Fordham says they're lying: 
  People familiar with Fordham's side of the story, however, said Fordham
was being used as a scapegoat by Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.

  They said Fordham had repeatedly warned Hastert's staff about Foley's
"problem" with pages, but little was done.

  The complaint about Foley was brought to the chairman of the page board,
Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL), last spring, and he then consulted with the
Clerk of the House of Representatives, Jeff Trandahl.

  At Fordham's urging, according to the sources, the matter was not given to
the full board, and instead Congressman Foley was privately approached and
told to stop all contact with the page he had been e-mailing. Yes, poor
Congressman Shimkus. What was he to do. A staffer disagreed with him, so
that meant his hands were tied. They have got to be kidding.

But there's a bigger problem here. Congressman Tom Reynolds (R-NY),
Fordham's boss, has been denying for days that Fordham was brought into the
discussions about this scandal when Reynolds found out months ago: 
  Reynolds deflected questions about why he never asked Fordham, who worked
for Foley for 10 years, about Foley's character, saying he had a "member to
member" conversation with Alexander and he didn't discuss other members of
Congress with Fordham. Now we know that Reynolds was lying. Fordham was
involved quite intimately with the goings on - whether you believe Fordham
that he was involved and urging the issue be dealt with, or if you believe
Hastert et. al. that Fordham was advising Shimkus to leave Foley alone,
either way Fordham was a key player, and Reynolds has been saying for days
that Fordham was not.

And finally, isn't it interesting that for days the House GOP leadership has
been telling us how they simply never read the emails so they never knew how
bad it was. Also, they've been telling us that Foley tricked them, he was
such a good liar they never realized how bad it was. But now they tell us
that they were convinced Foley was trouble and they desperately wanted to
tell the full Page Board but one single staffer wouldn't let them. How is it
that the GOP members, at the same time, didn't realize the emails were a big
deal and were duped by Foley, but also they were convinced Foley was trouble
and wanted to investigate him?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet