Watch: Fox didn't like the White House's answer to Peter Doocy's question, so they faked it

Originally published at: Watch: Fox didn't like the White House's answer to Peter Doocy's question, so they faked it | Boing Boing


Also you’ll note [in the unedited video] he said “what you consider peaceful.”

From the same news source that promoted “Jan 6th rioters were just tourists.”


I’m old enough to remember when people couldn’t lie like this on national news programs.


If only they applied the same standards to election workers that they do to judges.


As you probably are, I’m old enough to remember when Rupert Murdoch didn’t own a national news network in the U.S.

I just hope that seven years from now we’re both not talking about how we’re old enough to remember a time when we didn’t have the equivalent of Russian state television issuing propaganda on behalf of a one-party federal government.


“Do these justices have…no right to privacy” he asked. Maybe I missed something, but didn’t these justices just rule that there is no such thing as a right to privacy in the Constitution? So I’d say no, Peter, they do not because they said they do not.
What they have is an expectation of privacy while out in a public place doing public things. Seems sus to me, but I’m just a dude.


Pretty fucking rich he’s using “right to privacy” to defend SC Justices from encountering protestors.


Even inside a restaurant, it should be fine. We have a right to petition our government to reddress grievances. SCOTUS is pretty grevious right now.


Fox NEWS should be prosecuted under Truth in Advertising.


ethically, yes. legally? there might be some private property rights involved.

generally, the owners of a place get to say what they consider disruptive behavior. they can’t bar a class of people* but they can bar individuals.

(* well, at least till this supreme court gets involved. they’ll be happy to make it legal for far right christians to eject any class of people who makes them feel “uncomfortable” :confused: )


Had to look first to see if it had been said FAKE NEWS!!!

1 Like

Right? Even the foxed up version is just not that bad :woman_shrugging:t2:
If a restaurant owner wants to expel people for disruption, they can do that, but there’s no place for the federal gov’t to say that people aren’t allowed to peacefully voice they’re opinions inside a restaurant or anywhere else.
Grasping at straws, and their base will grasp with them.


The extra funny thing is the protesters were outside the restaurant and he never actually saw or heard them himself. He was just aware they were there. After the court itself ruled (and that ruling was cheered on by Fox et al) that abortion protesters had the right to stand outside clinics (or the homes of clinic workers) no matter how intimidating they were being, it’s just absurd that this discussion is even happening at all. The doublest of double standards.


I’m more talking about the scenario where people in the restaurant, customers, give a Justice a piece of their mind; not a bunch of rioters charging into the restaurant. But even, as mentioned, peaceful protesters entering and disrupting their meal and then leaving if asked to by the restaurant staff. I know a lot of restaurants where they would forget to ask…


For their (putting it politely) “creative editing” I’d suggest putting Fox “News” on a time-out from the White House press briefings. Say a week for the first offense? And government officials will give “No comment” answers if a Fox “News” reporter finds them to ask a question directly?


I hope Jean-Pierre calls Doocy out during the next WH press conference and goes word for word through the FOX cut job to get his personal take on it. See how he squirms out of that one on national tv.


Queue up Simpsons S6E9 “Homer Badman”, in which the TV show Rock Bottom edits Homer’s responses to make a better story. That was November 1994.


It wouldn’t surprise me that footage was deceptively edited in times past; the difference now is that it can be done in a matter of minutes, not hours, so a press conference exchange that happened half at 5:30 can be manipulated in time for the six o’clock news.


It really has too much a targeted feel to it for my taste. Trying to make the lesbian Black woman look foolish.


Editing official responses like this should be illegal. It should also be enough to get their press credentials revoked and barred from any official briefings in the future.