The Daily Mail is rabidly right-wing and notoriously anti-BBC so using it as a source in this case is not useful. Although obviously the people who work for the BBC are human and therefore are bound to have their own biases - in my view its just a matter of degrees.
And it is a Huffington Post/Kennedy hit piece that was itself a complete lie. Sun TV News (dubbed Fox News North”) already received a license months before the commentary was published. The requested change in law stemmed from a 1992 court case and had no affect on any license requests or grants. It had nothing to do with Fox News Channel which had been approved back in 2004 for airing but chose not to. The entire article was complete fabrication on Kennedy’s part.
“But they do it tooooo!”
Please name a comparably-sized media outlet that is a far to the left as Fox is to the right.
Apparently they are so rabidly right wing they are able to use Jedi mind tricks to get BBC officials to say whatever they want them to. They were even able to get BBC executives to meet in private and discuss the bias. The head of the BBC was tricked into saying their bias was “massive”. Of course he probably does not know as much about the BBC as you do.
Emphasis added.
Stupid request. It all depends on where you put your center. I’d probably consider Fox News left-wing. In any case you seem to misunderstand. If there is not a left wing analog of Fox News, then that is a missing element of your media landscape, and you should take steps to address that deficiency. As for size. It matters not, as long as it is available to a sizable portion of the population.
There are plenty of left wing programs - the difference is, we don’t try to claim they’re news.
So, just so we’re clear, Rune, a hypothetical organization can put whatever it wants on the air and call it news? And pointing out that it is biased, unfactual, and useless as an actual news-gathering or -reporting service is unfair criticism?
I don’t think anybody is saying that Fox News should be banned or silenced (or at least I’m not) - people are merely pointing out that much of it’s programming isn’t “news” in the truest sense of the word.
I think it actually depends on your ability to tell the difference between editorializing and news. The solution to Fox is not a left-wing version of Fox-you can’t clean the shit out of the chicken yard by throwing an equal amout of cow shit in it.
Really? Although you claim not to folow Fox, you seem to be able to speak on its behalf. Surely you’ve at least heard of comparable news organizations on the opposite side of the fence, and can name name one or two?
You’d consider Fox News left wing? Was that a Freudian slip, or do you really mean it?
FOX news has taught us sooooo many important “facts” of life including: the Obama birther scandal, you must have god in your life and in your politics and it is not necessary to understand how your government works before running for office. 
I can’t tune into this drivel for any occasion. I admire those of you who can watch this and be amused. I only get very angry. Since FOX and CNN became the two big news channels, I read the news online and let John & Stephen tell me the rest.
I must once again point out (this article has been linked to before) that this article is a ridiculous pile of lies. Virtually every sentence in it is false.
One rather glaring problem with the article is that we’ve had Fox News in Canada for seven years.
Mr. Kennedy is simply a bald-faced liar.
Or perhaps the media landscape could, and this is a radical idea, not include *any *100% hardcore partisan lie-spouting distortion spin machines whatsoever and instead rely on factual, mostly impartial news networks alone. If only for the well of debate not to feature so much raw diarrhoea and sheer waste of time.
I know, I know. You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only… oh, you know that one already ?
This is intriguing. After I had posted the OP I thought this is likely to turn into a short debate. I can’t imagine anyone on SD believing Fox to be fair and balanced.
I guess I was wrong. It’s interesting though how BBC has been brought out as an example of the opposite of what Fox is. It’s not even close. BBC reports real news and if they have an editorial section, they will announce it as such.
I did a little experiment going through each of the news channel I have available following is what was showing/topic right now:
Fox News: On the Record With Greta Van Susteren/Trump on the difference of a birth certificate and a certificate of birth, and if he will run or not.
BBC World News: World Business Report/Report on Taylor, Bean & Whitaker and the conviction of ex-chairman Lee Farkas for fraud.
SKY News: Sunrise/Bradley Manning the US soldier who leaked information. Something about he is being moved to another facility and the Pentagon denying that he is being mistreated.
CNBC: Squawk Box Europe/Discussion on Mario Drachi’s candidacy to the European Central Bank.
Bloomberg: Countdown with Mark Barton/Tech companies showed strong earnings in US.
CNN: World Report/World Weather
CNN Headline: Nancy Grace/Country Music Star cousin forced into woods by man in camouflage
CCTV (China Central TV): Story board/Report on Chinese Opera how after the Chinese Government stripped funding how the surviving opera troupes had to adapt and moderize to compete.
Channel NewsAsia: Real Hokkaido/Travel show. Things to eat and do in Hokkaido
NHK World: Today’s Close Up/Analysis of radioactive effects in Ibaraki prefecture. Right now they are discussing testing of fish caught off the coast.
Russia Today: Headline News/Egypt on Edge has reform gone far enough? Elections and possible outcomes.
Deutsche Welle: Journal/Libya Focus Masrata
Since CNN happened to have weather on in my little experiment, I thought I’d go back and see what they were reporting other than weather.
Fighting in Masrata, Libya.
I’d invite Rune, puddleglum et al to compare BBC News’s output (state funded) with that of SKY News (owned by NewsCorp - Fox’s owner).
Shockingly, they’re pretty damn similar. SKY tends to be a little more sensationalist with breaking news, but largely they concentrate on similar stories - thus similar editorial bias - and presenting the facts in as objective a manner as possible.
Why is this? SKY is independently owned and run. It’s a private network, with an independent editorial team, and therefore relies on giving the general public what it desires. And yet it’s remarkably similar to other outlets. Is it that the general public actually wants the “propaganda” that the BBC gives out, and therefore it seeks to emulate it? Or is it that the general public wants un-editorialised and as-close-to-objective-as-possible news reporting, because there are in fact standards that may be adhered to? I know which answer I favour.
As I’ve said many times in the past, in the UK the far right and the far left both bash the BBC; it must be doing something right.
There seems enough of that to go around. You’ve got US Fox News; the issue being discussed is Canada generating it’s own, Fox-affiliated (in 2003) and non-Fox affiliated (in 2011) stations with a “slant” that includes knowing falsehood. Canada’s ability to regulate what US “newscasters” say is unsurprisingly limited, and your rules for international rebroadcast are considerably looser than for home-grown stuff.
Five minutes of Binging found the defeated amendment itself, which clearly tries to weaken “false and misleading” to also require that said falsehoods have to “endanger the lives, health, or safety of the public,” a clearly much lower standard.
I’d argue both sides of this debate are being deliberately untruthful: One side for claiming that “Fox News isn’t allowed in Canada because it lies,” and the other for deliberately omitting the distinction between international rebroadcast and the actual Canadian regulation forbidding broadcasting false or misleading news, which isn’t fictitious at all, and has, in fact, kept Fox and Fox-like stations from originating in Canada, specifically because of their policies of nontruthfulness.
:eek:
:eek::eek::eek:
People like you never see the big picture. I’ve got news for you, if the government really wants people to think one way or another, they’re gonna be able to force it whether or not they have a channel
So yes, absolutely the government should be allowed to decide what is proper news and what is not. If it’s a good government, it helps to get rid of lies like Fox News or marginalize them. If it’s a bad government, it’s too late for you already and one channel’s not going to make a difference
Instead of asking what you asked, try to think of it this way: Do we want the state to be able to STOP what is not proper news?