Is Fox news for real?

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.

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.

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 :stuck_out_tongue:

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).

You don’t have to be in the U.K. to be feeling that pain.

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.

http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

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.

But those of us that took $8 about he queen wearing a yellow hat have reason to be interested.

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).

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 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.

Let me join SanVito and others as admitting to amazedment. I’d barely heard of Fox when my sister mailed me an OutFoxed DVD.

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.

Neat that the strongest defense here, for FoxNews, comes from someone who has “never watched” it. :cool:

I think DT is mis-remembering things. It was Canada that denied Fox News the right to broadcast. cite

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.

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.

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.

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?

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-1308215/Yes-BBC-biased-Mark-Thompson-admits-massive-lean-Left.html

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.