At the time of typing this, Trump Org’s indictment is nowhere to be seen on FOX’s website.
The top news story is…Hunter Biden’s laptop.
I would say check your bingo card but we preemptively gave the prize to the guy whose bingo card had Hunter Biden and Ilhan Omar on it.
Among the stories that did make the cut, is a woman who stopped a squirrel thief by using Vaseline on her bird feeder and another woman who found a cryptic note in a prom dress. If only it hadn’t been such a busy day for news.
ETA: Ah actually scrolling down there is now a link to Eric Trump reacting to the charges. But no story on the charges themselves.
Given its emphasis on law and order, Fox has really fouled up the story of an inmate getting released from prison after forty years behind bars.
The Fox website story emphasizes how the guy got a life sentence for robbing a taco stand of $264 with a water pistol. What it never mentions is that he had been found guilty of a previous robbery, had two additional felony convictions in another state, and was sentenced to life as a habitual criminal.
If CNN had overlooked that record, Fox would’ve happily slammed them.
I want to say “well duh; he’s a white guy”. But looking at the details, my opinion is a bit more equivocal.
On the one hand, I don’t believe in “three strikes” laws, and carry-over mandatory minimums. It’s only good for prison overcrowding and the US prison labor industry.
On the other hand, I’m not sure that the details of the case make it that trivial to me. Being robbed at gunpoint is terrifying and it won’t help to later discover that the gun was a toy. Plus pretending you have a gun can make police or vigilantes draw their weapons, so the situation can quickly turn deadly anyway. And who cares how much money was stolen – if the taco stand owner had just been gifted a golden ass would it make the crime worse?
Overall…I’m reluctantly going to side with FOX on this one. The sentence was too harsh and the man’s criminal record is largely irrelevant to whether this is the right call.
Sure, but what’s important? Previous crimes that a person served time for is not important to whether justice was served this time.
Were previous crimes mentioned in sentencing? I can’t find any details of that.
Regardless, my view is that “three strikes” style laws are largely unfair and don’t justify a hugely disproportionate sentence,
This guy received life in prison after he was charged as a habitual criminal (see link) and he was apparently sentenced under that statute (since Arkansas law calls for a minimum of 10 and maximum of 40 years for aggravated robbery). He wasn’t given life for robbing a taco stand of $264. Regardless of how one feels about the justice/value of habitual criminal sentencing, those are the facts. I suspect the Fox story left out his prior criminal record due to carelessness, or because someone thought it made for a better story.
Fox News is known for these traits, not that they’re the only ones fouling up the story. Maybe part of the problem is skeleton news crews operating on a holiday weekend.
It’s not just Fox on this one though, lots of media outlets are repeating the story the same way. (e.g. The Washington Post, The Independent etc).
And in fairness, it’s pretty consistent; people serving life sentences for marijuana possession, say, are often also sentenced based on “three strikes” or “habitual criminal” sentencing, and the news usually focuses on the final straw that actually put them behind bars. And, as someone that feels that “three strikes” is fuckdumb, I have no problem with that.
Now, can we please move on to any of the easy examples of misinformation, hypocrisy or incitement on Fox? Tucker has fully morphed into Alex Jones, and is dishing out the kool aid to tens of millions of viewers, and we’re talking about a misleading article that is the same as most outlets reported the same story?
I cited Fox because 1) it’s the subject of this thread, and 2) it’s amusing that a doggedly “law and order” news media source messed up in a way that it would normally lambaste other networks over.
I suspect part of the misunderstanding here stems from your feeling that since “three strikes”/habitual criminal sentencing laws are abhorrent, it’s OK to leave important information out of a story in order to fan that outrage. We differ there; I think that if a news organization wants to make such a point, it should do so in an accompanying editorial and not play games with straight news.
In any event, post whatever you like about the failings of Fox News, as I’ve done with at least one other example previously.
I was at a extended happy hour the other night and the host, for whatever reason, had Fox on with no sound. The story was the recent listing of Presidents best to worst. I saw Lincoln and Obama’s picture and some others and was waiting to see Trump’s name or likeness. Nothing after a couple of minutes and then my beer got low. I *almost * wanted to hear how the list was unfair, compiled by left wingers etc. but I was having a good time.
I actually have found an individual interesting/surprising counterpoint example. Based on the P&E thread about the apathy over the Donoghue revelation, I decided to see how the right wing was spinning it (if they were even mentioning it at all). So I went to Fox news did a search on Donoghue and found this article.
Which, surprisingly, actually seems to be a fairly straight forward description of what went down. But I steeled myself and dove into the belly of the beast by reading the comments section, where all the die hard MAGAts hang out. Only to discover that it was almost entirely populated by people calling out Trump for corruption. I had to check the URL several times just to make sure that I hadn’t accidentally stumbled onto CNN or the Washington Post.
This is of course just one counter example of journalism out of a cavalcade of evidence of bias, but it was at least somewhat refreshing.
Is it possible to even find that article without searching for it using the search bar? I didn’t see it on their front page or on their politics page. Maybe that’s why the commentary is more like what you’d expect from normal, patriotic citizens – the only people who find that article are those specifically searching for Trump’s corruption.
It was a few days old so I wouldn’t expect it to be on the front page now. Since I don’t regularly slum like this, I don’t know how high it was on the page when if first came out.
What jumps out to me there is the giant “HOSPITLIZATIONS” on the poster. But I’m just an old former proofreader/copy editor who can’t help seeing misspellings on TV graphics and in newspapers ALL. THE. TIME.
(Because spell check is fine! And proofreaders/copy editors are the first to go in budget cuts! And spelling doesn’t count as long as you know what they mean! Arrrgh …)
Now back to your regularly scheduled well-deserved criticism of Fox News …
