Uh, has anyone pointed out the obvious? – the “Fox News” programs that some people seem to find objectional just aren’t “news” per se – they’re commentator shows. Hosts always have their opinions and are always balanced one way or the other. There’s no guarantee that commentors’ comments will be fair, neutral, or honest. The “Fox News” news on the other hand is presumably balanced. We’ve just gotta be careful to separate the editorial from the story. Sometimes you have to be careful to separate “news” from “feature.” “Feature stories” aren’t necessarily “news.”
Personally I really started to like Fox news as soon as it showed up on my lineup. But it’s really starting to frustrate me because I don’t want to watch O’Rielly or Hannidy and Colms. I want the bloody news. But at least I suffer no false impressions about where any of these guys stand.
I think I answered that by not breaking the GQ neutrality and injecting my political beliefs. So here I’ll state that I’m a Panista.
Well, they tend to stick to a rule of getting left and right guests. They have hosts from the left, and from the right.
I think the success of O’reilly is doing too much for the opinion that they are coming from the left.
You can be sued for claims, but lawsuits against advertising need to be backed by the FTC or Attorney General, and all the FOX ads fit guidelines for truth in advertising.
Can thye be sued? YES. Would it stand a snowball chance in hell? No.
IMHO, the lefties on Fox are constantly defending against an assault from the right. …and vice versa. You just don’t see it that much on other stations.
From my high school teacher ‘you can sue a ham sandwich’
What does ‘fair’ mean to you, what does ‘balanced’ mean?
The big difference I see in Fox News compaired to almost any other TV news is that FOX News will tell you the political leanings of their hosts and give both sides (left and right - via different hosts). For news I can’t fathom why any court would decide FOX was not Fair and Balanced even if you case was seriously considered.
“Oh yeah. Because CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC are so “objective” and “impartial”. Why is it that the liberals always get into a snit about Fox News whe they’ve had a lock on all other media organizations for so long?”
ROFL
Look out, it’s the Liberal Media!
Where?
Right there, next to Santa & the Easter Bunny!
Cervaise I don’t know if you were replying to my post but I really didn’t mean to put any more politics into it then the thread requires (since the OP does involve politics). My point was, AFAIK you can sue anything for anyone so I went futher into it as if you had a chance of winning the suit which I doubt since they are fair and balanced as I understand the terms.
Here is the ruling. In essence, it says that the FCC’s “news distortion policy” is not techically a “rule, law or regulation,” thus, the reporters could not qualify as “whistleblowers” because there is no law against lying.
Perhaps I should have been clearer. Simply put, since there is no law against lying, lying is legal. Ralph Nader testified during the proceedings and stated that he was not aware of a single case in which the FCC had actually yanked a license or punished any news orginization for violating the statute against “distortion.”
The OP has been answered with a definite NO (if sleeping meant sued successfully - as anyone can be sued (I don’t know about a ham sandwich), but why pick on FoxNews? How about the Chicago Tribune: World’s Greatest Newspaper? Just one of many “puffing” ads being promulgated in the media.
For the second time in a week, I will remind folks that this is not the forum for discussing the merits or demerits of news channels. Let’s stick the the factual question of whether such a suit could be successful.
Those news outles are corporations or divisions of corperations and corperations are owned buy shareholders. As far as I know political affiliation is not a requirement in buying stock.
I suggest the best way in finding out the political affiliation and leanings of a media personality is to see their endorcements and voting record if they make it public.
Those news outles are corporations or divisions of corperations and corperations are owned by shareholders. As far as I know political affiliation is not a requirement in buying stock.
I suggest the best way in finding out the political affiliation and leanings of a media personality is to see their endorcements and voting record if they make it public.
So here I’ll state that I’m a Panista.