I don't believe you're this stupid so I now think you're lying
How did they form the headers "on the fly" without any research? How'd they set up the interview with the guy weeks ahead of time? Why would they let somebody on their show they hadn't screened first? You think Emerson was just some guy off the street who they thought might be kinda interesting to talk to?
Fox News, the organization, purposefully had this guy come onto this show, report about these fake "Muslim-Only" zones in the UK to instill fear into American nursing homes by injecting the implication that "If they could do it here, they can do it where you live too!". As if the Muslims are taking over! Millions of people see it, then a month later they release a 15 second "apology clip" that maybe a few thousand people see and gets swept under the rug while the original fear they created permeates through pharmacies and bingo rooms throughout the nation.
I'm sure they set up the interview and I'm sure they knew the topic would be islam in Europe. I don't think these things are scripted. It's possible they knew ahead of time that the Muslim only thing was going to be said. It's possible they didn't.
It's entirely possible that they had no idea what specifically this man was going to say, only general talking points. When you run a 24/7 news chanel with 21 hours of live talking, it can't all be planned out before hand.
You ask how they get the headers up. They can be up within seconds of the uttering of a phrase. All someone in a control booth need do is type, and remember that the graphics are overlay onto a delayed conversation. So the graphics can been be ahead of the people talking that way.
So you're saying the story about how Birmingham is a "Muslim Only" city reported on by Fox News wasn't "news"?
What constitutes what "news" is, to you? Using the traditional definition of 'news', it means literally "a report of a recent event", so explain to me why you believe the story about how Birmingham doesn't allow non-Muslims in is not "news"?
I'm not trying to move the goalposts here but hopefully you'd allow someone to refine their point. When I said news story, I meant a prepared segment with no outside variable. Something FNC would have been 100% in control of and had time to review and vet properly and still decide to go with. An example would be something like the Dan Rather story in the 04 election. Something they should have known was false, had total control of, and went ahead due to their zeal getting the better of any journalistic integrity.
You did provide a lot of examples. I focused on this one becuase you listed it first. I assume you lead with your best. If you think another thing better exhibits their fakeness let's discuss that becuase we can't discuss all those issues.
And keep in mind. I'm not saying FNC is a perfectly centrist objective news chanel. They have a right slant and operate that way. They chose what to discuss and what way to discuss it.
Msnbc does the same, just on the left. CNN is almost as left as msnbc. Having a slant doesn't mean it isn't news. Reporting false events as truth does. And of course, normal human error has to be taken into account.
