Probably not. And all three major cable news outlets are mostly “opinion”, very little “news”. “Opinion” is what draws people in regularly. Very, very few people really want to watch hours and hours of news everyday. For them, there is Headline News. It’s mind-numbing.
While I disagree with about 95% of what you say here on the SDMB, on this, I agree 100%.
I remember when Ed Meese forced the distributors of a documentary film on acid rain to label their movie “Propaganda.” That was an arrant violation of free speech, and so would it be if Fox News was forced to label itself “biased.”
Who watches the watchmen? Whom can we trust to have fairness and objectivity sufficient to label our media for us?
The old so & so who owns it is about 200 years old.
He won’t last.
I actually watch Fox News regularly. It’s the first channel I go to when I watch TV News (not often).
Fox News is ridiculously biased. Except for Shepard Smith and to a lesser extent Chris Wallace and a couple of others, everyone from morning to evening is extremely conservative.
The fact that the most right wing people on this board are saying that Fox News is moderate is the real testament to how conservative it really is.
Also, Fox News is about as mainstream as media gets. I laugh every time anyone on that network accuses the mainstream media of being liberally biased.
I also laugh every time they cite the Drudge report, and have recently taken to a BIAS alert similar to the drudge siren.
Seriously, you can turn on Fox News at any time of the day, and within 10 minutes you’re going to get negative coverage of a democrat, or positive coverage of a republican, or a totally nonpolitical story that is newsworthy. There are essentially no exceptions to this rule.
Weird, this seems to work with the BBC in the UK pretty well… the ARD & ZDF in Germany… RTE in Ireland…
If they mess up the news, they get pretty much called on by other stations and have to issue a statment etc.
… however, there is always the option of wearing a tinfoil hat
If I were you, I would go around bragging that you’re only correct about 5% if the time. 
Nobody is suggesting that would be. I argue that Fox’s news/factual information to opinion ratio is so low that it needs an editorial disclaimer and shouldn’t be allowed to masquerade as a *news *outlet. MSNBC might well not meet that criteria either. No skin off my teeth. As to WHO should set and judge such merits, I would suggest a multi-national association of journalists set the standards, and a bi-partisan or non partisan entity administer it. The issue is not that Fox exists but that it touts itself as a news entity presenting factual information to the public rather than the opinion/analysis station that it actually is. What’s more, such measures would not preclude Fox from reporting on the news events, it would merely require that the public be informed about the nature of the reporting they are consuming.
I’d rather see a class action suit by viewers who learned they were deliberately misled. They paid Fox through their cable company and were told that it was news when it wasn’t.
No one has mentioned the fact that Fox was started by Rupert Murdoch specifically to express his conservative point of view. That’s its purpose; and it should be considered whenever anyone talks about “fairness” on Fox.
Was it started by Rupert Murdoch to express his personal views, or was it started by Rupert Murdoch because those views were the ones he deemed most likely to make him money?
I’m not sure how Fox is a problem. Partisan news sources have existed since this country’s founding. IMO, the real problem is that so many news sources, as in nearly all of them, have a partisan bent but no longer cop to it like they would have before the television age, when enormous political pressure was put on news media to be objective. Problem was, it was also a period of Democratic dominance, so “objective” tended to be whatever the Democratic Party wanted.
That’s where you aim to distinguish “government” from “civil service”
Once again, the problem isn’t the partisanship-it’s the lying. Do you not find lying to be a problem?
I find people and organizations designating themselves arbiters of truth and calling for action against those they deem liars to be a much bigger problem these days.
Irony meters explode en masse.
Some types of “truth” are not up for debate. Facts, for example exist independently from spin, but they can be used to promote a certain view. That is why we have sites like Snopes and Politifact checking up on specific claims. They deal in facts. Either something is correct or it is not.
Now, that being understood, I rather like the system that both sites use of creating a scale from outright false to factually correct, placing many statements in between the two. We have plenty of room to designate something “exaggeration, partially true, misleading, etc..”
One system might be to take a random sample of programming, (say 24 hrs pulled from over 24 days over the last year) and score it accordingly; subtracting points from a starting score for each outright falsehood, misleading statement, blatant exaggeration, etc… Take the scores return and average them. Anything returning a score below 50% must then run an editorial disclaimer. There is nothing sinister, draconian, or partisan about that. It merely would ensure that ANY station that promotes itself as an outlet for factual news and information is producing content that is at least correct/ non partisan at least 50% of the time.
In some cases, yes. In other cases, facts are in dispute. I like the fact check sites, but they are not gospel, just more useful information to analyze the merits of an argument.
That’s right-the problem isn’t the lying. The problem is those that would dare to call them out on it, because there are no facts, only opinions. :rolleyes:
Perhaps if the word “lie” wasn’t thrown around so often in cases where there clearly is a reasonable dispute about what the facts are. Overuse of the accusation is poisoning our discourse.
And avoiding the elephant in the room is hijacking our discourse. If you don’t like the accusation, disprove it.