Just to note, you are now bringing up a completely different subject than the one I was discussing, However, most of what Fox (or any cable news channel) broadcasts is commentary, not hard news. As I said earlier, if you force FoxNews to change its name to FoxCommentary, you’ll score a huge victory for the folks who gnash their teeth on this MB about Fox being able to call itself “news”, but you won’t have changed a thing.
And **BrokenBriton **seems to make regulation the “no kind of option” IIUC that is just about the opposite to the regulation **adaher **is implying many here are proposing.
Indeed those are BBC guidelines, and many here, including me, are not proposing regulation but that news sources use basic guidelines in accuracy in reporting, indeed, a self imposed check against false balance.
As for the BBC, those guidelines are part of the big reason many on the internet, even in the USA, looks at the BBC for information and wile independent knowledgeable reviewers are telling us FOX is the pits, reviewers like that give good grades to the BBC and the BBC does not ignore them, they actually make efforts to get better.
As FOX ignores those common sense guidelines one should then ignore FOX, or at least be aware of levels of willful deceit that news network is involved with.
It is still evidence that indeed the excuse that “News organizations make mistakes all the time.” is a non operative one regarding FOX news, as Nixon would say.
Do lies fall under your definition of “news”?
Nope. Fox is going to make mistakes, as all broadcast media do, news or not-news. Teasing out the legit mistakes from the outright lies is simply not so easy to do. In the “D” instead of “R” case, we’re offered 2 examples over a 16 year period. I don’t know how many times it would have to occur before it was obviously a lie, but I’d think it would have to be a lot more than 2.
Correction there:
As for the BBC, those guidelines are part of the big reason many on the internet, even in the USA, looks at the BBC for information and while independent knowledgeable reviewers are telling us that FOX is the pits, reviewers like that give good grades to the BBC but there are some areas of concern like the false balance observed in some subjects, the BBC does not ignore those bad items, they actually make efforts to get better.
I already know that, so:
Nope, you are now trying to absolve FOX for the lesser deed and ignore the clear evidence for the bigger misdeed that indeed makes a mockery of the idea that what FOX news is doing is just innocent mistakes and after so many years.
The only way to do that is for the government to decide what objective reporting of the news is.
Take this recent article on Sandra Fluke:
Sandra Fluke, the woman at the center of a media firestorm earlier this year after Rush Limbaugh called her a “slut,” spoke Saturday in front of about 10 people at the Sak ‘N Save in north Reno.
A speaker speaking to 10 people is news? And check out the caption: “Social justice advocate”. REally? I wasn’t aware of Sandra Fluke being anything but an advocate for free contraception.
We’ve got two kinds of bias in this article. First, choosing what to report, and second, being especially kind to Fluke by calling her a social justice advocate.
In practice, of course, no free country gets this far down into the weeds to regulate the news. Which leaves cherry picking specific cases that are especially controversial or not pursuing cases at all. Most countries seem content to merely have a chilling effect on the free press. No thank you, not here.
First, it was three examples: Mark Sanford plus the two below. Second, it wasn’t “over a 16 year period”; the Sanford, Stevens and Foley scandals were just three years apart. Third, you ignore the fact that it never happens the other way around; they’ve never misidentified a Democrat who was in trouble as a Republican, as far as I can tell, or a Republican who wasn’t in trouble as a Democrat.
Yes, it’s possible that these are all innocent mistakes. However, since we are not privy to the inner workings of Fox News, it’s pretty ridiculous that you require explicit proof. How are we supposed to obtain that?
[QUOTE=adaher]
A speaker speaking to 10 people is news?
[/QUOTE]
It’s local news. You think the Reno Journal-Gazette is biased because it’s reporting things that are going on smack in the middle of its distribution area? This is either the worst attempt at false equivalence ever or… I don’t know, maybe they don’t have local newspapers where you live.
It’s not local news even. Do you know how easy it is to get 10 people to listen to you? I’ve seen more people gather round a homeless guy with a Bible doing some preaching. How come that isn’t a news story? There were probably many other events that day that drew more than 10 people and did not get reported on.
Anyway, back to Fox, they’ve got a HUGE scoop which will bring down the administration if it’s true.
And if it’s not, we can talk about that in this thread too.
No it won’t. FN has been trotting out Charles Woods all week and nobody cares.
Are you saying it won’t because it’s false, or it won’t even if it’s true?
Panetta seems to be confirming the Fox story:
“We didn’t have enough information!” Well excuse me, sometimes you can’t wait six months to do something. I know your boss likes to plan everything over a long period of time, but sometimes the job involves snap decisions. The snap decision made here was wrong.
I was saying the latter, but the former works just as well. The article is not exactly balanced. It makes it sound as though it’s a foregone conclusion that the Pentagon could have sent in a gunship because they had one in Italy, for example.
ETA: Do you work for Fox News? Panetta is “confirming” the fact that the administration didn’t immediately send military aid. He said nothing about whether any was requested, or whether it was even possible.
The issue isn’t what they had available, it’s that they disallowed what was available from coming to his assistance. If this story is true, the CIA team that arrived to help Stevens was disobeying orders.
… and were killed, which suggests they probably should have followed them.
As Mediamatters reports, FOX is just reaching for new lows.
And FOX’s own annalists are remarking on the low blows, pointing at the schizoid nature of FOX news.
And this time Crooks & Liars is more relevant than ever at pointing at who is one in this case, these FAUX news crooks do not care if they take whatever “fairness” they claimed they had into the toilet.
This is just another example of a manufactured story by Fox. They aren’t covering news, they are creating it. Does anyone think for a second they would have handled it the same way for a Republican president? It pretty much follows the pattern John Stewart talks about. The commentary side of Fox talks about an issue then the news side reports on the controversy. This would have been a noth9ng story if it had happened a year ago, but so close to the election Fox is looking for a gotcha of some sort. The “not calling it terrorism bit” fell flat so they are just trying a new angle. It will work of course, because some number of people will believe it.
I don’t think that’s a valid argument. Stevens wasn’t the only person killed in the attack, and Fox News’ cause celebre is the father of one of the other victims.