# Is Fox news for real? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 19, 2011, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933 "2011-04-19T05:41:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/21 "2011-04-19T12:53:45Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > State Financed is not the same as government run. It’s damned close. He who pays the piper calls the tune. But that said, the state should license broadcasters because the public airwaves are public property. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/22 "2011-04-19T13:27:02Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > It’s damned close. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Not remotely, in the case of the BBC. The Blair government spent a long time in contention with the BBC because the BBC was not toeing the line on Blair’s march to the Iraq war; when the BBC finally slipped up (in a comment made by one reporter in a live radio conversation at about 6am one morning) the government came down like a ton of bricks. Sadly, the BBC Board of Governors proved to be a bunch of milquetoasts at that point but I put that down to lack of character rather than being in the government’s pocket. ---
**Author:** ![enigmatic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@enigmatic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enigmatic)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/23 "2011-04-19T13:46:43Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s damned close. He who pays the piper calls the tune. But you should only take comfort in the fact that your fellow citizens are paying the piper, if you are confident that your fellow citizens have the same expectations about what they want him to play. The government is always going to have the power to influence the media, and necessarily so. The BBC’s model is no more intrinsically vulnerable to this than Fox’s. A fundamental assumption of the law and intent surrounding the existence of corporations is the realisation that market forces make it impossible for them to regulate themselves and that they must instead be regulated by government. The fact that the disgustingly incestuous relationship between government and business, especially in the US, is preventing this from occurring does not alter the fact that the government has been vested with tremendous power to control them. The British government could announce tomorrow that they intend to scrap the licence fee, the US government could end the US recognition of Fox or (News Corp) as a legal entity. In theory the check on this power should be the attitude of the public to this, as well as the governments own economic interests. Anyone who considers the fact that the government in the US is hopelessly compromised by corporate interests as a legitimate layer of checks and balances is deluded at best. All entities in a country can always be influenced by it’s government, and the government is always at the mercy of it’s citizens (although most of the try _really_ hard to make them forget that). At the end of the day my perception, as a citizen of the UK, is that enough of my fellow citizens value the concept of an honest BBC that we mostly have an honest BBC. I also perceive many of them value the concept of biased hate and stupidity fonts, and thus we have so many of our noble tabloid newspapers. I perceive a similar variety of news sources in the US. If there is a difference it is in the percentage of citizens who choose to go for the good stuff, and the reasons for those differences, and I’m not going to touch that one with a ten foot barge pole 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Marquez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ce7236/32.png) [@Marquez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marquez)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/24 "2011-04-19T14:34:42Z")
I feel it is important to point out that in the UK you are only obliged to pay the license fee if you own a working television. While I admit that this is anachronistic, the BBC is largely respected and even loved in this country. (Although I am personally getting a bit annoyed with the slavish Royal Wedding coverage at the minute). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/25 "2011-04-19T14:47:49Z")
> [@Marquez](#): > > (Although I am personally getting a bit annoyed with the slavish Royal Wedding coverage at the minute). You don’t have to be in the U.K. to be feeling that pain. ---
**Author:** ![Death\_of\_Rats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a6a055/32.png) [@Death\_of\_Rats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Death_of_Rats)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/26 "2011-04-19T14:47:55Z")
> [@NiceGuyJack](#): > > I’ve heard that they are the most popular news channel in the US. Is this true? Or is that a number invented by Fox, like so many things they seem to report. Technically, they are the “most watched” news channel. Not all of their viewers are supporters. Also, this claim is not as impressive as they would like you to believe. They have staked out a small but vocal segment of the Conservative population who only get their news from Fox and watch it religiously to the exclusion of all other news sources. The rest of the population is split between three broadcast news organizations, three major cable news organizations (including people who watch Fox and other news outlets), international news sources (from a US point of view) and various internet news sources. So in the end, Fox can count on a core group of viewers who are not using other news sources plus people who watch Fox in addition to other news sources, while the rest split the majority of the total viewers among a large number of competitors and get smaller ratings numbers. ---
**Author:** ![Katriona](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/katriona/32/113_2.png) [@Katriona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katriona)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/27 "2011-04-19T15:21:48Z")
> [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > Hey **DT** , could you provide some links to that, I hadnt heard of this before, I’d be interested. Thanks. (Something more solid than wiki if you can). > P.S: the BBC=Pravda. Just 🙂 . [http://www.relfe.com/media\_can\_legally\_lie.html](http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html) ---
**Author:** ![enigmatic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@enigmatic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enigmatic)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/28 "2011-04-19T15:29:38Z")
> [@](#): > > All entities in a country can always be influenced by it’s government, and the government is always at the mercy of it’s citizens (although most of the try really hard to make them forget that). Can I just call myself out here?, on re-read, that sentence is bollocks. Independent organisations with a significant presence in a country can always be influenced by it’s government, and the government is always at the mercy of it’s population. Slightly better, but it’s still bugging me, I know what I _mean_. ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/29 "2011-04-19T15:43:24Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You don’t have to be in the U.K. to be feeling that pain. But those of us that took $8 about he queen wearing a yellow hat have reason to be interested. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/30 "2011-04-19T15:51:52Z")
> [@Marquez](#): > > I feel it is important to point out that in the UK you are only obliged to pay the license fee if you own a working television. I believe you’re also supposed to pay the fee if you own a PC card that can be used to process TV broadcast signals. Least it’s that way in France (or so I was told when I bought mine - haven’t bothered checking, or paying for that matter since I never used it for that purpose. Zee Taxman never showed up to collect either, so _shrug_). ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/31 "2011-04-19T16:06:52Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > I don’t trust anyone to tell me what is proper news and what is not. That is a call I’m quite capable of making myself. You may feel otherwise. Yeah, it’s your right to consider some nut on the corner ranting about the apocalypse “news”, but that doesn’t mean broadcasters are obliged to give him a license. All networks everywhere have regulations and standards. As an adult, I’d like to see nudity and hear some f-bombs in my TV shows, but the fact that I don’t hardly makes me feel oppressed. I’m sure there are some who would consider televised executions entertainment, but that doesn’t fall under the definition set up by the broadcasting authorities. Too bad for them. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/32 "2011-04-19T16:12:09Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Fox uses an attack so exaggerated and perverse that a child should have been able to see through it, and yet just plausible enough to fill one with an alarmed feeling that other people, less level-headed than oneself, might be taken in by it. I must grudgingly admit it’s pretty innovative of them to blend the “children’s entertainment” and “political conspiracy thriller” genres, and do it so seamlessly. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/33 "2011-04-19T16:24:34Z")
> [@SanVito](#): > > WOW, is this what it’s like watching Fox News? Let me join **SanVito** and others as admitting to amazedment. I’d barely heard of Fox when my sister mailed me an _OutFoxed_ DVD. > [@don\_t\_ask](#): > > … Australian media analyst … said, “Well of course Fox isn’t news, it’s just entertainment.” The rest of the panel immediately agreed. > [@yojimbo](#): > > … That said Fox News is the most ridiculous news station I’ve ever seen. I remember watching it with friends for entertainment. We’d just sit and laugh at the craziness we were watching. Partisan doesn’t even begin to describe what was happening. To even try to equate it with the BBC is laughable. It shows you have either (a) never seen Fox News (b) never seen the BBC or (c) so tied up with your own sides politics that you have lost all sense of actual truth. > > Again I’m not saying that news can’t be biased or slanted but Fox is out there on their own from my experience with rolling news chan[ne]ls. I hope it seems not unduly supercilious to admit that non-Americans (and Americans living abroad) often seem to have a better perspective on American politics than many or most Americans. > [@Rune](#): > > I have never watched Fox News, … By comparison, as far as I know, no one is forced to pay to Fox. And if such compulsion exists then that is wrong too. > > I don’t trust anyone to tell me what is proper news and what is not. That is a call I’m quite capable of making myself. You may feel otherwise. Neat that the strongest defense here, for FoxNews, comes from someone who has “never watched” it. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/34 "2011-04-19T16:45:14Z")
> [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > Hey **DT** , could you provide some links to that, I hadnt heard of this before, I’d be interested. Thanks. (Something more solid than wiki if you can). > P.S: the BBC=Pravda. Just 🙂 . I think **DT** is mis-remembering things. It was Canada that denied Fox News the right to broadcast. [cite](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/fox-news-will-not-be-moving-into-canada-after-all_b_829473.html) ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/35 "2011-04-19T17:02:32Z")
> [@Death\_of\_Rats](#): > > Technically, they are the “most watched” news channel. It certainly qualifies as “most talked about” here. In much the same way that a road accident is a very popular spectator sport. Some people just watch Fox “News” for the shock value or the yux factor. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/36 "2011-04-19T17:05:29Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > Yeah, it’s your right to consider some nut on the corner ranting about the apocalypse “news”, but that doesn’t mean broadcasters are obliged to give him a license. All networks everywhere have regulations and standards. As an adult, I’d like to see nudity and hear some f-bombs in my TV shows, but the fact that I don’t hardly makes me feel oppressed. I’m sure there are some who would consider televised executions entertainment, but that doesn’t fall under the definition set up by the broadcasting authorities. Too bad for them. I’m sure many Chinese don’t feel oppressed when the state helps them select the media that can best be described as proper news. I suppose there has been some reason in the past for the state to grant license to a limited number of airwave bands. Fortunately the Internet and cable makes such state intervention unnecessary. And since any unnecessary state intervention is unwanted intervention, such power over the media should go the way of the Dodo. > [@septimus](#): > > Neat that the strongest defense here, for FoxNews, comes from someone who has “never watched” it. 🆒 Speaks to the liberal herding instinct doesn’t it. But I’m not defending Fox, merely saying that it plays an important role in a multifaceted media landscape. The same way that your favourite liberal crazy moonbat media outlet does. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/37 "2011-04-19T17:21:55Z")
There will always be a market for chest-beating “those intellectuals don’t know nuthin’!” flag-waving patriotism, and Fox News has latched onto said market, which was previously getting only limited service. Surely there are a few British newspapers that cater to the corresponding UK equivalent. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/38 "2011-04-19T17:23:49Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > I’m sure many Chinese don’t feel oppressed when the state helps them select the media that can best be described as proper news. I suppose there has been some reason in the past for the state to grant license to a limited number of airwave bands. Fortunately the Internet and cable makes such state intervention unnecessary. And since any unnecessary state intervention is unwanted intervention, such power over the media should go the way of the Dodo. > > Speaks to the liberal herding instinct doesn’t it. But I’m not defending Fox, merely saying that it plays an important role in a multifaceted media landscape. The same way that your favourite liberal crazy moonbat media outlet does. You’re trying to make an equivalence between China’s censorious practices and the BBC/CBC? Laughable. You don’t see how requiring news to report facts rather than opinion and speculation is different from suppressing facts altogether to keep the public in the dark about the government? If the BBC/CBC never reported on anything critical of their own governments you might have a point. But there are objective methods for determining fact vs. fiction, and it seems quite reasonable that if you’re what you’re “reporting” is shown to be largely fiction, you don’t qualify as “news” but rather “entertainment”. Would you be just as upset if they refused to air _The Wire_ or _The Sopranos_ as sitcoms? ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/39 "2011-04-19T17:31:29Z")
The BBC has admitted over and over that it is biased: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html) > [@](#): > > Political pundit Andrew Marr said: ‘The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.’ > Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to ‘correct’, it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it ‘no moral weight’. > Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a ‘very senior news executive’, about the BBC’s pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: ‘The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.’ [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308215/Yes-BBC-biased-Mark-Thompson-admits-massive-lean-Left.html](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308215/Yes-BBC-biased-Mark-Thompson-admits-massive-lean-Left.html) > [@](#): > > BBC Director General Mark Thompson has admitted the corporation was guilty of a ‘massive’ Left-wing bias in the past. > > The TV chief also admitted there had been a ‘struggle’ to achieve impartiality and that staff were ’ mystified’ by the early years of Margaret Thatcher’s government ---
**Author:** ![Marquez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ce7236/32.png) [@Marquez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marquez)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933/40 "2011-04-19T17:39:56Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > There will always be a market for chest-beating “those intellectuals don’t know nuthin’!” flag-waving patriotism, and Fox News has latched onto said market, which was previously getting only limited service. Surely there are a few British newspapers that cater to the corresponding UK equivalent. Absolutely there is news media for plebs (mainly daily newspapers as you say rather than television channels) but the same kind of rabid mistrust of and disdain for intellectuals doesn’t really exist, the two groups just don’t cross paths all that much in the UK. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-for-real/578933.md?page=3)