Fox expsoses hypocrisy of networks not covering Patricia Smith RNC speech... one problem tho...

[JosephDredd]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-frie...pat-smith-rnc-speech-theres-just-one-problem/

Fox & Friends this morning thought they spotted a bit of media bias in how other networks avoided live coverage of the RNC speech from Benghazi mother Patricia Smith.

Steve Doocy said there’s a double standard in how she was covered and how Khizr Khan‘s being covered.

“I was on the floor for that,” Brian Kilmeade said. “I did not know that no networks covered her. Nobody covered those remarks live, but almost everybody covered Mr. Khan’s remarks live.”

There’s just one problem.

CNN covered the entirety of Smith’s speech. MSNBC did the same.

Wanna guess who didn’t? Fox News.

In fact, Fox News literally cut to commercial as the speaker before Smith wrapped, and when Bill O’Reilly returned from break and she was still speaking, he conducted an interview with Donald Trump.

This is very reminiscent of that time when Fox News’ own Todd Starnes scolded the mainstream media for not covering the memorial of slain NYPD officer Rafael Ramos. CNN and MSNBC devoted plenty of live coverage to the memorial. Fox News? Not so much.

Hillary would be so much worse at reporting, tho.

 

[JosephDredd]

lol from another article on the website:

That’s right, folks, the reason Fox News didn’t carry Patricia Smith’s speech live, even though the other news networks did, is because Donald Trump called in to Fox News to give an interview while Smith was speaking.

Eric Trump is also just factually incorrect. All three of the news networks covered the Pat Smith speech extensively. According to TV Eyes, CNN and MSNBC did at least 12 segments apiece that mentioned the speech.

Trump is referring to an “analysis” by the Media Research Center, which only took into account broadcast news coverage, and which made the inaccurate comparison between Patricia Smith’s speech, which it said got 720 seconds of coverage, with the Khizr Khan speech, which it said got 55 minutes and 13 seconds of coverage. However, according to TV Eyes, the Big Three only devoted a total of two segments totaling one minute and fifty seconds to the speech itself. The rest of the coverage MRC attributes to the speech was actually of Donald Trump’s response to Mr. Khan and his wife, and the ensuing feud.

 

[panamaican]

And this is why no one, not even conservatives, should watch Fox and Friends. It's a god awful program. I think I hate Doocy's face.

 

[JosephDredd]

And this is why no one, not even conservatives, should watch Fox and Friends. It's a god awful program. I think I hate Doocy's face.

I liked it when BJ Penn rubbed his testicles in Brian Kilmeade's face.

 

[WalkenWouldOwn]

Swing and a miss.

 

[JosephDredd]

bumped for @Letssnuggle

 

[ShinkanPo]

T.V network wars are hilariously dumb

 

[Pem123]

And this is why no one, not even conservatives, should watch Fox and Friends. It's a god awful program. I think I hate Doocy's face.

i agree though, trying to watch Fox and Friend, i hate every minute of it.

i hate Fox news in general, but they seems to always have hot women .

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Help me out here.

Trump is referring to an “analysis” by the Media Research Center, which only took into account broadcast news coverage, and which made the inaccurate comparison between Patricia Smith’s speech, which it said got 720 seconds of coverage, with the Khizr Khan speech, which it said got 55 minutes and 13 seconds of coverage. However, according to TV Eyes, the Big Three only devoted a total of two segments totaling one minute and fifty seconds to the speech itself. The rest of the coverage MRC attributes to the speech was actually of Donald Trump’s response to Mr. Khan and his wife, and the ensuing feud.

Is this saying the outlets in question showed the whole Smith speech (and mostly nothing but the speech) while spending roughly an hour covering the fallout from another speech?