The Fox News Politics Twitter account announced tonight that Barack Obama had been assassinated. Multiple Tweets over the course of an hour detailed what can only be described as a gruesome and cruel hoax by hackers as they claimed that Obama had been shot in the abdomen and bled out while campaigning in Iowa.
While this is almost certainly a case of hacking (though just prior to the Tweets, the account writer expressed relief at having "gotten back our account access"), what's sad is that it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility for Fox News to do this as a joke. They make a habit of purposely mislabeling Republicans who have done anything at all negative as Democrats, and of course, they aren't known for being very fond of Barack Obama.
The account so far hasn't been updated to indicate that Fox News Politics knows anything about a hack, and the offensive Tweets haven't been taken down yet.
A couple of the Tweets read: "Barack Obama has just passed. The President is dead. A sad 4th of July, indeed. President Barack Obama is dead" and "Barack Obama shot twice at a Ross' restaurant in Iowa while campaigning. RIP Obama, best regards to the Obama family."
Whoever is responsible for these disgusting Tweets should be prosecuted, and if this is the work of a Fox News employee, they should be immediately fired.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 88
Surprise, me not at all, it what they do and if they were in power and could get away with it they would do much more and far, far worse against those they deem not American enough. Some sick people you have in the right wing and so called conservative movement and there call for, I want America back!
Today, cook out and fireworks, enjoy everyone and let no one rain on your parade. And may there be no dark clouds to dampen the spirit of the first family this day. Enjoy today festivities President Barack H. Obama along with your lovely wife Michelle and your daughters. Enjoy the White House July 4th, celebration, and may there be many more to come during your second term in office.
But, with all this new media and the instantaneous affect, this could be a big liability to big news corporations like Fox or any prominent individual.
I guess some people would like it better when the military took their orders from Halliburton.
It is quite evident that you never served this country through military service, inasmuch, had you done so, you would have known that you can not choose to "resign" from military service once you become an active member.
Guess you saw no valid reason to serve your country, only to denegrate it and it's president in writings. Sad personal commentary for an obvious fool of a man.
Nevertheless, for her to say that Fox News is capable of such a joke--even in jest--does nothing but to devolve the debate into a pool of cynicism.
And it does nothing, but to give the zealous, narrow-minded Right Wingers an opportunity to use our own ammunition against us:
We denigrate the Right for their vile, vicious, distorted and sick rhetoric.
Let's not give them any unnecessary rope, with which to hang us, for the same reasons.
The more credibility we have, the greater opportunity there is for us to grab the Moral High Ground--each and every time the Right Wing screws up, which is often.
To say, as a bit of sarcasm, that one wouldn't put it past Fox News to announce the President's assassination, as a joke, is almost as over-the-top as Fox actually concocting such a sick, media-report caper.
I believe the articles author, Reene Shah, to her credit, leans more towards being a Progressive or Progressive Socialist, than being just Liberal in political ideology. However, such assumption is not really for me to make. I do so, only because I have read many of her articles here on Gather News and find her writings to be such in nature.
As to her giving conservative readers a rope by which to hang politically liberal thinkers, substance is what she is suppose to present as an author. Gather News is suppose to be written in such form by it's authors so that the context creates commentaries from the readers on both sides of an issue. Authors are also suppose to give personal opinions and additional commentary skewered to provoke thought and opposing responses.
By doing so, more comments are presented/posted, thereby, giving all readers a broader understanding of the issue at question and the many different ways it is viewed by people having different values, ethics and morality as well as different political ideology and interest.
If the number of readers who have thus far responded to this article is any indicator, then I would say her writings are doing what they are intended to do.
If the number of readers who have thus far responded to this article is any indicator, then I would say her writings are doing what they are intended to do.
That's what a call hitting the nail on the head~very well-stated, Scott!
I'm a democratic socialist (progressive socialist is pretty much spot on, Scott!), and trust me...Obama's no socialist. Most liberals (who are more conservative than I am) tend to find him disturbingly conservative.
In truth he's probably center/center-right, just like Clinton. America has yet to have a truly liberal President, and we've never had a socialist one.
Give credit, where credit is due, that's the American way.
Media Matters hasn't "actively" been trying to get rid of Fox News; Fox News is just the least truthful of any of the mainstream news organizations (and yes, Fox News is 'mainstream media') and so give Media Matters the most fodder to work with.
If Fox doesn't want Media Matters picking on it all the time then they should be less biased and focus more on being factually correct in their reporting.
Fox News' trouble with Media Matters is all of their own doing.
Media Matters is not a news organization. They aren't required to be objective.
Fox News, on the other hand, calls itself objective (fair and balanced) at every commercial interview, when even its owner says it's a conservative mouthpiece. Fox News even funds Republican candidates.
I have actually watched Fox News. It's garish. They should really reconsider their color scheme. And learn to fact check.
For the record I read a number of conservative newspapers. I find Fox News revolting.
THe left would love to have this station taken off of the air and for what reason? If watched enough it does tell both sides of the story... I have heard even Oreilly defend Hilly Clinton as well as Obama when they deserve it.. This is the problem, those that oppose Fox, dont even watch it enought to get the full picture.. They believe what someone else says about it, just as they never really researched the other side when it came to voting for Obama...
I do watch Fox News, and it's atrociously bad. I have no choice, I live in TN and every single store/restaurant/doctor's office you walk into is playing it.
No wonder the people here are so misinformed about the world. Look at the filter they get their news from.
UNTILL I heard that the report was false, I was pissed off.
I wsrote a post on this.
I am about 5 days behind.
If President Obama's views, goals, leadership style, etc is NOT what you would like to see in "YOUR" President than find an alternative candidate and throw ALL of your support behind that individual. Rally your friends and associates to vote for the candidate you believe will represent you as you wish.
DO NOT disrespect "OUR" President (no matter whom that be) - because by doing so, you disrespect "OUR" country and what "WE" all stand for.
I DID NOT vote for Presdient Obama but I respect that he is "OUR" President and I wish him wisdom, clarity and courage in his role as President - becuase I respect this country.
The person(s) behind this "Tweet" incident should be found and tride in a court of their peers...that is the American system we hold so dear. That system that too many have died to protect.
Reading the back-and-forth of hatred in this post honestly turns my stomach!!!
How can you forget when Obama himself, disrespects people,,, Remember this one? If they bring a knife to the fight , you bring a gun... The woman asking, about the high gas promises, wasnt she told to buy a smaller car? Just to name a couple...
(Vickey, in case you weren't aware (and I don't blame you if you weren't, our schools do a horrible job at teaching this to people): "Freedom of Speech" only applies to the government. The government cannot infringe on the speech of the people. It does not mean "I can say whatever I want in a private setting.")
How is suggesting that someone buy a different car being disrespectful? He's right. If you have a car that gets low gas mileage (like a gas guzzler) and you're complaining about high gas prices, you're kind of an idiot.
I can't agree with your defense of this Post.
Call me a charter memer of the Thought Police, if you would like--but it when it comes to determining the veracity of a report about a President's assassination, free speech rights may technically prevail.
But irresponsibility should NOT.
A false report--satire or not--of the assassination of the President is, understandably, considered to be a VERY SERIOUS matter.
The Secret Service takes a dim view of such a report--and, indeed, that department is already looking into the genesis of this hoax.
It is simply irresponsible for anyone to accuse a major news network of being beind a false report of a Presidential assassination. EVEN if that news network is the biased Fox News Network.
Gather news policies are one thing--but manipulating these policies to the point of unethical sensationalism and unconscionable finger-pointing is not.
And, as a side consequence, it stokes the fury of primitive debate--between the Left and the Right.
It is NOT my intent to "stand-up" for Fox News but if anyone would care to do any amount of research regarding which news channel is believed to be the "least biased" and/or most "trusted" then they might be a bit alarmed to find these results.
This is from a poll conducted from Sacred Heart Univesrsity...some interesting finds here folks.
A Sacred Heart University Poll found significantly declining percentages of Americans saying they believe all or most of media news reporting. In the current national poll, just 19.6% of those surveyed could say they believe all or most news media reporting. This is down from 27.4% in 2003. Just under one-quarter, 23.9%, in 2007 said they believe little or none of reporting while 55.3% suggested they believe some media news reporting.
....The perception is growing among Americans that the news media attempts to influence public opinion -- from 79.3% strongly or somewhat agreeing in 2003 to 87.6% in 2007.
And, 86.0% agreed (strongly or somewhat) that the news media attempts to influence public policies -- up from 76.7% in 2003....
By four-to-one margins, Americans surveyed see The New York Times (41.9% to 11.8%) and National Public Radio (40.3% to 11.2%) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative.
By a three-to-one margin, Americans see news media journalists and broadcasters (45.4% to 15.7%) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative.
And, by a two-to-one margin, Americans see CNN (44.9% to 18.4%) and MSNBC (38.8% to 15.8%) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative.
Just Fox News was seen as mostly and somewhat conservative (48.7%) over mostly or somewhat liberal (22.3%).
The most trusted national TV news organizations, for accurate reporting, in declining order included: Fox News (27.0%), CNN (14.6%), and NBC News (10.90%). These were followed by ABC News (7.0%), local news (6.9%), CBS News (6.8%) MSNBC (4.0%), PBS News (3.0%), CNBC (0.6%) and CBN (0.5%).
In 2003, CNN led Fox News on “trust most for accurate reporting”
23.8% to 14.6%.
I DO NOT watch nor endorse the watching of Fox News, I'm just a stickler for the "TRUTH", even when that truth paints me a "far right winger" or "far lefty" depneding on the facts I present.
What say you?
The question isn't "how many people THINK Fox News is accurate?" It should be "IS Fox News accurate?"
And there are plenty of studies to show that it is not.
Are there ANY "Centrists" here on GAther, or am I the only one?
Did I miss the memo stating that "Independent thinkers with moderate, middle-of-the-road points-of-view are not welcome to share those views"?
In Gather's "Terms of Use" does it state that only people who prescribe to one of the two "major political parties" are allowed to comment in the "POLITICAL" section of Gather?
Just checking, because it surely feels that no matter what I say or share or more importantly question - it is immediately met with contention and at times out-right contempt.
No one's preventing you from commenting. People are simply disagreeing with you.
Get over it.
I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with people disagreeing with me, actually it just goes to prove to me that there are way too many ill-informed people in the world.
What I am "whinning" about, as you call it, is the fact that often when I present information that is not in-line with the thoughts of others, I am immediately called a "Right wing radical", a "Tea-bagger", a "Lefty Loon", a "Demon-acrat", a "Repug-lican", etc.
I guess you are right though, I should simply realize that this is what weak-minded people do, regardless of their party affiliation.
Can't wait for you to provide those: >"It should be "IS Fox News accurate?"
And there are plenty of studies to show that it is not." studies...
Waiting patiently.
I will say, upfront, that I am well aware that my following theory is not objective--about the findings that you report.
If I spent enough time, conducting objective research--given that I was capable of doing so--I believe that I would discover what Renee contends:
That Fox is grossly more subjective than, for example, CNN.
And here's where my subjectivity comes in, even further:
I believe that the percentages you report, that represent perceptions, are ESCHEWED because of the following:
More and more people, these days, are being influenced by the angry, vindictive and malignant 'screaming', orchestrated by RIGHT WING MEDIA....especially Talk Radio, throughout this country.
This malice, this dissatisfaction is VIRAL....it is SO vehement and SO screeching that it is LITERALLY affecting, adversely, the consciousness of the Public and therefore its perceptions.
Anger is contagious....especially if the average citizen is hurting--ecomonically and otherwise.
Awwww, geeee, look at the Lewft Librawl Mediahh gangin' up on meee....againnnn...
What'zzzz a narrowh-minded cita-hzen like me tooooo doooo?
You write "If I spent enough time, conducting objective research--given that I was capable of doing so--I believe that I would discover what Renee contends"
So, I will ask you, as I did Renee, to please give source of this "objective research"...PLEASE!!!
Do NOT take this the wrong way but merely stating that you have found such source without sharing any reference to it - DOES NOT make it fact!!! If you and Renee can so easily find material to back up your point-of-view then surely it would be just as easy to share the source of that material.
Honestly, I would really like to read the material for myself. I believe that I stated that I do not watch Fox News, am not a fan of the network or of many of the shows i.e Beck, Oreilly, Hannitty, etc. - but I do like the truth and always look for proof of fact...so any help proofing that the Sacred Heart Poll is incorrect or should be discounted due to some other source would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf
To the comment that said that CNN/etc etc etc are liberal: give me a break. I'm liberal and I find every single television news channel middle of the road, except for Fox which is conservative and PBS which is neutral (which of course conservatives would label "liberal").
Anyways some of you may find the collection of studies I posted interesting. Some won't because it goes against what they believe about their preferred cable news station, but so be it. It shows factually that Fox News viewers are the most uninformed when compared to consumers of other stations, because the facts that Fox News delivers (in these studies about the Iraq War) are incorrect.
That poll asked media consumers to give their opinion on which news organization was most accurate.
If you ask 100 people that question, and 99 of them are fans of Fox News, then the poll will tell you that 99% of people think Fox News is accurate.
That doesn't actually make Fox News accurate, it just means that the people who watch it think it's accurate.
The study I posted (not an opinion poll like Sacred Heart) shows that while people may believe what they're told on Fox, what they're being told on Fox is not always necessarily accurate.
Your study (opinion poll) asked the wrong question.
Thanks fo rthe link to the World Opinion piece...wow a lot to read there.
The study only focused on perceptions and/or misinformation pertaining to the Iraq War but it was interesting reading just the same.
I would like to point out one thing, if I might...you state above that the "problem" with the Sacred Heart University poll is that it "asked media consumers to give their opinion". The World Opinion poll did the same exact thing, asked media consumers to give their opinion (or perhaps their understanding). So we both reference polls conducted of media consumers, asked to give their opinions and although the outcomes are different, the process is remarkably similar.
To your point about Fox News being accurate or it's audience simply thinking that it's accurate, I agree with you 100% - but the World Opinion poll only serves to prove the same thing...it is perception not necessarily reality that can be measured by these polls. So I would contend that the Sacred Heart poll did not ask the wrong question any more than the World Opinion poll did not.
It has been said many times before, opinions are like nostrils (or other parts of the anatomy), everyone has one!!!
Of course the World Opinion poll is much more lengthly and detailed, but I do not know if that neceassarily makes it any more correct in it's findings.
Thanks for sharing the link to the World Opinion poll, it was an interesting read.
The methodology included reviewing statements made by each news channel to make sure that the answers given by the viewers was in line with what they were being told by their preferred network.
Fox News consistently misinformed their viewers. That isn't a matter of anyone's opinion, it is a proven and verified fact according to this study.
I imagine such studies on other topics would yield similar results. In fact there's a very good website which documents years worth of Fox News stories concerning global warming, and then checks those statements against what is known to be factually true. Fox News misled its viewers on almost all the studied points. This was a report, not an academic study, but it holds quite a lot of weight in educated discussions about media bias.
You're welcome for the link--I had to read that study several times for various university courses on media bias and perception. I'm surprised I don't have it memorized by now. ;)