PDA

View Full Version : Today In Dishonest Fox News Charts



Qtec
12-13-2011, 02:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It looks like Fox is trying to mislead its viewers on the unemployment rate. Again.

On Monday, Fox News displayed a chart illustrating changes to the unemployment rate during 2011</div></div>

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-an-20111212-unemployment.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Note how the 8.6 percent unemployment rate in November looks higher than March's 8.8 percent rate, and about the same as the 9 percent unemployment rate in October.</div></div>

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-an-20111212-markedchart.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Here's how an honest chart of changes to the unemployment rate during 2011 looks:</div></div>

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/bls-20111212-unemploymentrate-2011.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The pattern of dishonesty is alarming. </span>

A few weeks ago, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics first reported that the unemployment rate had dropped to 8.6 percent in November -- the lowest rate in more than 2 years -- a Fox News graphic rounded up to 9 percent. In 2010, Fox News aired a staggeringly misleading chart suggesting that 15 million jobs were lost in three months. Three months.

<u>In 2009, Fox reportedly sent an email to staff announcing "zero tolerance for on-screen errors." The memo hasn't stuck.</u> </div></div>

Its so obviously misleading its unreal. Everything about it is wrong.

Q ...Pathetic Fox.

Qtec
12-13-2011, 03:04 AM
Olbermann nails it (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201112120023?frontpage)

Q

eg8r
12-13-2011, 08:46 AM
You are right, the 8.6 does look higher than the 8.8. LOL, isn't it sad that government education has dumbed down America so much that they need to see graphical representation of the numbers to understand what is happening?

LOL, even sadder is when schmucks like you decide to zoom into a chart to make the ups and downs look more "drastic" and then try and call yourself honest. If you wanted to be honest then you would have kept the same scale and just corrected the data point. You are as a big a con as you think Fox is.

eg8r

Qtec
12-14-2011, 01:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are right, the 8.6 does look higher than the 8.8. LOL, isn't it sad that government education has dumbed down America so much that they need to see graphical representation of the numbers to understand what is happening?

LOL, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>even sadder is when schmucks like you decide to zoom into a chart to make the ups and downs look more "drastic" and then try and call yourself honest. </span> If you wanted to be honest then you would have kept the same scale and just corrected the data point. You are as a big a con as you think Fox is.

eg8r </div></div>

The last chart is accurate, is it not? So how is it dishonest?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you wanted to be honest then you would have kept the same scale </div></div>

LOL.

Listen up now schmuck. Do you see where Fox got their info? It says it on the chart,

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-an-20111212-markedchart.jpg

In case you missed it, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Bureau of Labor Statistics</span>

So schmuck, I went to the site and looked up the statistics for 2011 and guess what schmuck, just guess what chart it showed?

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS14000000_86508_1323846654879.gif

Geez, looks at lot like the chart I posted.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/bls-20111212-unemploymentrate-2011.jpg

Check it out schmuck.

link (http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet)

Someone at Fox went to that site and got the same chart as I did. They didn't like it so they changed it to suit their own agenda. They deliberately tried to mislead and you want ME to use THEIR chart?

You should check your facts before you go accusing people. Its very clear that I did not 'decide to zoom into a chart to make the ups and downs look more "drastic"' as you claim. That was Fox!


Q

sack316
12-14-2011, 08:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-an-20111212-markedchart.jpg
</div></div>

Look how sharp the drop appears from the 0.1% change in January-Feb! So it goes both ways /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Someone needs some graphing practice over there for sure. y=mx+b homeys!

Sack

eg8r
12-14-2011, 11:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The last chart is accurate, is it not? So how is it dishonest?
</div></div>You never do see the stupidity in using your own words and thoughts do you. This is why it is better for you to leave it up to thinking people to talk for you. Again, I will say it one more time...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you wanted to be honest then you would have kept the same scale and just corrected the data point. You are as a big a con as you think Fox is.
</div></div>So there you have it. If you wanted to be honest you would have simply taken the same data, used the same scale and put the data points in their correct places. I am not questioning the data or the source schmuck. I am questioning how the data is being displayed. You showed that Fox misrepresented a data point. An honest person would have used the same graph and corrected the data point instead of zooming in as close as they could in an effort to make the drop look exaggerated.

Listen, I get it, you did not do well in school and you are being played here. You are unwilling to listen to educated people show your weakness so you will piss and moan and throw up strawman arguments. The fact of the matter is I agreed Fox mislead their viewers with the graph and I also agree you are a schmuck and couldn't make the graph correct if you tried (which you didn't).

eg8r

eg8r
12-14-2011, 11:44 AM
I agree, they really screwed the pooch on that one. LOL, qtip in all his google searching never did notice that none of the data points were very close. LOL, he forgot to mention what a drop Fox gave Obama from 9 to 8.9 but that is really the underlying issue isn't it? He isn't trying to show us that in general Fox does not good at charting data, he wants to make it a partisan issue when clearly they screwed up both ways. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Face it, they suck at charting.

The sad part is that it would take a person with 5th grade math skills to make a new chart (same scale if qtip even knows what that means) showing the correct slope for all data points. qtip did not want to prove he can't do it so he just decided to show completely different graphs of the same data which in part changed the scale to exaggerate the drop making it look even better than it really is.


eg8r

Qtec
12-15-2011, 05:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Look how sharp the drop appears from the 0.1% change in January-Feb! So it goes both ways </div></div>

watch Ed (http://newscorpwatch.org/mmtv/201112140003)

Everything is wrong with that chart but the biggest and most obvious mistake is the last month when UE dropped dramatically.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As Media Matters for America notes,. pull back from the screen and focus only on the trend line, not on the numbers. See something off? As Media Matters’ Zachary Pleat writes, “the 8.6 percent unemployment rate in November looks higher than March’s 8.8 percent rate, and about the same as the 9 percent unemployment rate in October.” Even though things are improving just slightly, the chart’s message is that they’re not.

Everything we know about computer-generated graphics tells us that a double-jointed chart like this doesn’t just self-generate. <u>That is, to get a trend line to defy the numbers attached to it has to require effort and enterprise.</u> And effort and enterprise in the area of TV graphics puts a smile on the face of Fox News chief Roger Ailes </div></div>

If the UE rate went up Fox would show a different chart, more like the one I linked. eg8r thinks it was an honest mistake, i disagree.

Just in, another honest mistake. Geez, anyone could mistake Mitt for Obama, they look so much alike!

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/foxnewsglitch.jpg

Don't believe it????



check it out (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obamney-fail-fox-news-mistakenly-uses-barack-obama-photo-on-mitt-romney-poll-graphic/)


Q

Qtec
12-15-2011, 05:59 AM
http://www.bradblog.com/Images/FoxOReilly_MarkFoleyDEM_100306.jpg


http://i.huffpost.com/gen/88511/thumbs/s-SANFORD-large.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fox Reverses Poll Results To Falsely Claim Most Americans Favor Ending Collective Bargaining </div></div>

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-ff-20110223-wipollbackwards.jpg

etc, etc ,etc.

Q

Qtec
12-15-2011, 06:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The last chart is accurate, is it not?</div></div>

eg8r...no answer.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> So how is it dishonest? </div></div>

eg8r...no answer.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you wanted to be honest then you would have kept the same scale and just corrected the data point. </div></div>

The Fox chart is skewed to minimize the fall in UE numbers.
You admitted as such when you said,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree, they really screwed the pooch on that one. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As Media Matters for America notes,. pull back from the screen and focus only on the trend line, not on the numbers. See something off? As Media Matters’ Zachary Pleat writes, “the 8.6 percent unemployment rate in November looks higher than March’s 8.8 percent rate, and about the same as the 9 percent unemployment rate in October.” Even though things are improving just slightly, the chart’s message is that they’re not.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Everything we know about computer-generated graphics tells us that a double-jointed chart like this doesn’t just self-generate. That is, to get a trend line to defy the numbers attached to it has to require effort and enterprise. </span>And effort and enterprise in the area of TV graphics puts a smile on the face of Fox News chief Roger Ailes </div></div>

ie, if UE went up, they would use the chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Q

eg8r
12-15-2011, 09:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">eg8r thinks it was an honest mistake, i disagree.
</div></div>Considering nearly all the other data points are wrong also, what else could you think? They screwed the graph up. Why didn't you correct the same graph using the same data and scale to show it correctly? Why switch to a completely different scale to exaggerate the drop?

eg8r

eg8r
12-15-2011, 09:22 AM
I am not responding to your strawman questions. I am not going to allow you to change the subject.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Fox chart is skewed to minimize the fall in UE numbers.
</div></div>Do you know what "skewing" a chart means? It has to do with the probability of where real/random data points lie relative to the middle. Considering the data that we are referring to skew has nothing to do with anything.

You stated you had a problem with where they placed the data point. Fix the chart, the same data the same scale. Admit it, you don't have any idea what I am talking about.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ie, if UE went up, they would use the chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.</div></div>Strawman. You don't know what they would do but even if your guess was correct it still doesn't have anything to do with the example you decided to talk about.

Time for you to act like you have at least an 8th grade education and produce a graph with the same data points and same scale. It should be easy enough for you.

eg8r

Qtec
12-16-2011, 05:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Do you know what "skewing" a chart means? It has to do with the probability of where real/random data points lie relative to the middle. Considering the data that we are referring to skew has nothing to do with anything. </div></div>

What BS you spout sometimes.

Any chart can be manipulated to show a certain point of view. Fox used their own chart [ computer generated ] , NOT the one provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics because it did not suit there agenda...ie,.bashing Obama.

Now you want me to use a chart that you have already branded as a load of crap! Are you nuts?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree, they really screwed the pooch on that one. </div></div>


OK, lets see if you have ANY integrity at all.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You should check your facts before you go accusing people. Its very clear that I did not 'decide to zoom into a chart to make the ups and downs look more "drastic"' as you claim. That was Fox!


Q </div></div>

Be a man. Apologise. You were wrong.

The truth will set you free.



Q

eg8r
12-16-2011, 07:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What BS you spout sometimes.

Any chart can be manipulated to show a certain point of view. </div></div>So you admit your really did not know what "skew" meant. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif It doesn't mean manipulating a chart, it is a technical word.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now you want me to use a chart that you have already branded as a load of crap! Are you nuts?
</div></div>You said they put the data point in the wrong spot. If you actually had any sort of education you could easily reproduce the same graph and put the data points right where they belong.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You should check your facts before you go accusing people. Its very clear that I did not 'decide to zoom into a chart to make the ups and downs look more "drastic"' as you claim. That was Fox!
</div></div>LOL, I apologize, for some reason I thought you had the wherewithal to perform such a task. Now I know you never could have done that. Instead you chose to copy/paste someone else's work. Seems to be your MO but it works since they can actually create a graph and then tell you what it says.

As far as being a man of integrity, you refuse to prove you have it. Your issue was with the placement of the data point because they told you it was out of place. LOL, you were not intelligent enough to notice there were more errors going the other direction. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
12-17-2011, 12:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you admit your really did not know what "skew" meant. \:\) It doesn't mean manipulating a chart, it is a technical word. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">skew (sky)
v. skewed, skew·ing, skews
v.intr.
1. To take an oblique course or direction.
2. To look obliquely or sideways.
v.tr.
1. To turn or place at an angle.
2. To give a bias to; distort.
adj.
1. Placed or turned to one side; asymmetrical.
2. Distorted or biased in meaning or effect.
3. Having a part that diverges, as in gearing.
4. </div></div>

Q

eg8r
12-17-2011, 03:00 PM
Thank you for proving you don't know skew means in reference to a chart.

eg8r

Qtec
12-17-2011, 07:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thank you for proving </div></div>.. that you only seem to know one meaning of the word.

Again.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Any chart can be manipulated to show [ emphasize ] a certain point of view. Fox used their own chart [ computer generated ] , <u>NOT the one provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics because it did not suit there agenda</u> </div></div>

How many times are they permitted to 'screw' up like this before you start to think its deliberate.

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/foxnewsglitch.jpg

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/FoxOReilly_MarkFoleyDEM_100306.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/88511/thumbs/s-SANFORD-large.jpg

etc, etc ,etc............Q

eg8r
12-18-2011, 07:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.. that you only seem to know one meaning of the word.

Again.
</div></div>You misused the word in the context you were trying to use it. When plotting data points skew has everything to do with what I said. Plotting data points incorrectly is what they did. The data was not "skewed".

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many times are they permitted to 'screw' up like this before you start to think its deliberate.
</div></div>By asking your to rechart the data you somehow believe that is my defense of their integrity? All I said is if you think their data is incorrect don't show a different chart that is zoomed in using a different scale. If you think they charted the data incorrectly then show a correct chart. You were just as bad as they were.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
12-19-2011, 12:47 PM
It's true that the corrective source Q used to show the Fox lie (it wasn't a skew) himself exaggerated the y axis, which showed the decline as far greater than it would otherwise show, if a more normal y axis were used.

However, as the axis was properly labeled (showing it was using tenths of a percent of UE rate), it was just slightly misleading, and not false, as was the Fox graphic. In a way, not misleading at all, but in more ways, visually misleading, I'll grant you that point.

As to why Q didn't make his own graph, who knows (this was handy at the debunking source he used, is my guess), but it's very much a secondary or side issue, relative to the problem Fox has with the truth, over and over again.

eg8r
12-19-2011, 04:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As to why Q didn't make his own graph, who knows (this was handy at the debunking source he used, is my guess), but it's very much a secondary or side issue, relative to the problem Fox has with the truth, over and over again.</div></div>If he would have just stopped with showing the fox graph it would have been enough. Tossing in the rest caused my issue with the thread. If you have beef with a graph then you show a correct graph using the same scale. Easy as pie. Then he started talking about skew and the wheels fell off at that point. He was way off base by then.

Where it really became funny was when he got all pissy with the one data point being off and acting like Fox was using it to downplay the drop while at the same time other data points were also off in the other direction. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Basically what happened was he was doing his normal brainless copy/paste and never looked at anything other than what the original author/speaker wanted him to look at. He did not go the extra mile to fully take in all the information. This is an example of being spoon-fed specific info when there was quite a bit more available.

eg8r

cushioncrawler
12-19-2011, 05:08 PM
This iz bullshit. Fox's graff iz-woz a lie. Q's graph iz the perfikt truth.
mac.

eg8r
12-19-2011, 10:03 PM
So you don't really want to even bother to understand what is being said. No problem, I see that type of thought/input from you all the time.

eg8r

Qtec
12-20-2011, 05:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The November rate is lower than the March rate of 8.8 percent, but it's shown to be higher in the Fox News chart. Here's what the graph should look like, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: </div></div>

http://flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/good-chart1.png

Happy now? And your point was?

link (http://flowingdata.com/2011/12/12/fox-news-still-makes-awesome-charts/)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It doesn't quite beat the best pie chart ever, but it's close. </div></div>


http://flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/yapb_cache/app15725951258947184.acq6gmp0hf4sowckg80ssc8wg.2xn e1totli0w8s8k0o44cs0wc.th.png

What you don't seem to get is that its not important that the rest of the chart maybe accurate, it was a 10 second clip! Anyone watching would zero in on the latest figures and be left with a false impression, which exactly what they were trying to do.

Its just another nail in the coffin of the myth that Fox News is a news channel.

The only other alternative is that they are supremely incompetent.

Q

cushioncrawler
12-20-2011, 05:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you don't really want to even bother to understand what is being said. No problem, I see that type of thought/input from you all the time. eg8r</div></div>I would say that i hav never ever been tricked by a graff of any sort any time. Certainly if Q shows a detailed graff to u guys here there kan be no possibility of a trick no matter what scale etc Q uzes.

But if Q showed a graff with a tricky y-ordinate axis briefly and nonclearly to an ordinary audience, then that would be different.

But this aint what Fox did -- what Fox did woz to lie, not trick.

In fact it iz clear to me that Fox were very clever in picking a y-ordinate scale etc that both prezented their lie to best lieing advantage, whilst at the same time hiding their lie az best they kood.
mac.

Qtec
12-20-2011, 06:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In fact it iz clear to me that Fox were very clever in picking a y-ordinate scale etc that both prezented their lie to best lieing advantage, whilst at the same time hiding their lie az best they kood.
mac. </div></div>

Its clear to me as well.



Q

eg8r
12-20-2011, 04:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Happy now? And your point was?
</div></div>Just wondering what took so long for you to figure it out.

That last chart is funny as crap. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
12-20-2011, 04:54 PM
I am not arguing that Fox is being dishonest with the graphs they are showing. The pie chart that qtip quoted is actually quite funny.

This thread could have been a lot shorter if qtip had simply shown the first two charts he had in the beginning (both of the same thing but second extending the lines) and then the one he just recently shown with the corrected data point plotting. Hard to disagree with that.

Then he started arguing and using nomenclature of which he has no knowledge and it became quite evident that was the case. In the end he finally relinquished and just posted the very simple chart as was requested in the beginning.

eg8r

cushioncrawler
12-20-2011, 07:11 PM
That pie chart iz a goody.
It would make the 3 bunches of supporters all happy -- koz if u look at your candidate's color long enuff its size looks bigger and bigger and finally looks bigger than the other two.
I must remember that.

And, if u spin the chart around its center, all of the colors merge and it looks like one big white pie chart -- so the kukluxklan iz happy allso.
mac.

Qtec
12-21-2011, 02:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In fact it iz clear to me that Fox were very clever in picking a y-ordinate scale etc that both prezented their lie to best lieing advantage, whilst at the same time hiding their lie az best they kood.
mac. </div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am not arguing that Fox is being dishonest with the graphs they are showing. </div></div>

Exactly. You said it was a mistake.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree, they really screwed the pooch on that one. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Considering nearly all the other data points are wrong also, what else could you think? <u>They screwed the graph up.</u> </div></div>

It wasn't a 'mistake'. It is part of their agenda. It was deliberate. They do it all the time.

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/foxnewsglitch.jpg

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/FoxOReilly_MarkFoleyDEM_100306.jpg

BTW,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="color: #990000">Fox News Management Fed Up by Mistakes</span>
By Matt Dornic on <span style='font-size: 17pt'>November 23, 2009</span> 11:38 AM

After a few footage mishaps at Fox News like their recent slip-up: “Fox News Uses Old Palin Footage,” the higher ups at the network have had enough.

Subject: Quality Control

We had a mistake on Newsroom today when a wrong book cover went on screen during a guest segment, the kind of thing that can fall through the cracks on any day with any story given the large amount of elements and editorial we run through our broadcasts. Unfortunately, it is the latest in a series of mistakes on FNC in recent months. We have to all improve our performance in terms of ensuring error-free broadcasts. To that end, there was a meeting this afternoon between senior managers and the folks who run the daytime shows in which expectations were reviewed, and the following results were announced:? <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Effective immediately, <span style='font-size: 20pt'><span style="color: #990000">there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors.</span></span> Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the “mistake chain,” and those who supervise them. That may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all obviously play a role in performance reviews.</span> </div></div>

Of course they are lying.

Q