Outfoxed - Page 2

I, for one, value diverse sources of information. Regardless of whether you're liberal or conservative, it's good to hear both sides of view. Even if Fox is "an adjunct of the Republican party," that voice deserves to be heard.

I value both accuracy and diversity in the mass media among other things. Fox News, again, fails on the first account. It's been widely reported that the people with the most misconceptions about the war primarily watched Fox News. Although I appreciate Fox News' largely conservative ideology it imparts station-wide (news reports, story selection, analysis, commentary, etc), I don't appreciate its highly deceptive advertising. In any reasonable person's mind, "Fair and Balanced" and 'We Report. You Decide" suggest objectivity and neutrality-- not a decidedly conservative slanted outlook on everything. That's misleading and disservices more than benefits the public -- especially considering the first thing I talked about.

We've mostly been through this before in other threads, but it's good to flesh it out once in a while.

Actually those misconceptions were quite vague from what I recall reading them. I've also asked you to provide evidence of bias that goes beyond the viewer and to the actual programs and reporters. It should be easy since they are so plainly biased in your view.

Nick

At least in the UK when Fox Gets out of line... they have recourse.

This is in regards to the British version of Fox News.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site...J8OVF&b=6228#7

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/pr..._cases?a=87101

-------
Decision

The Programme Code requires that all factually-based programmes should be characterised by a respect for truth; that in Personal View programmes the opinions expressed, however partial, should not rest upon false evidence and the facts should be respected. To ensure fairness, programmes which contain a damaging critique of any individual or organisation should normally offer those criticised an opportunity to respond.


a) Ofcom does not accept that Fox Newss claim that an appointment of a monitor to detect pro-Arab bias is proof of an anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest within the BBC. Similarly, we do not believe that a simple Internet search for the words BBC and anti-American is sufficient evidence to back-up such a statement. (An Internet search will only identify those sites which contain those words, it will not make any editorial judgement over how those words are used). Fox News stated that the BBCs approach was irrational and dishonest. However, it did not provide any evidence other than to say the BBC bashed American policy; or that it ridiculed the US President without any analysis; and that it persecuted Tony Blair.


b) We do not accept that the Hutton Inquiry supported the statement that the BBC felt entitled to lie and when caught lying, felt entitled to defend its lying. The Inquiry stated that BBC editorial system was defective. At no stage did Hutton accuse the BBC management of lying.
c) Fox News argue that the presenter was not directly quoting Gilligan when he claimed that the reporter insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military. However, the manner in which John Gibson delivered these lines and the fact that he indicated that Gilligan said it on-air gave the distinct impression that he was quoting Gilligan directly. It did not appear that he was summarising Gilligans reporting. Furthermore, Fox News failed to provide any evidence, except that it felt that Gilligans reporting of the US advance into Baghdad was incorrect, that supported this statement.


d) As previously stated the Hutton Inquiry concluded that the BBC editorial system was defective. There is no evidence, and Fox News did not provide any, that the BBC insisted its reporter had a right to lie. Fox News argue that from its study of BBC reporting it could claim that the BBC knew that the war was wrong. Fox Newss study appears to be based on its own viewing and listening of BBC services. It could provide nothing more than this statement to back up this assertion.


We recognise how important freedom of expression is within the media. This item was part of a well-established spot, in which the presenter put forwards his own opinion in an uncompromising manner. However, such items should not make false statements by undermining facts. Fox News was unable to provide any substantial evidence to support the overall allegation that the BBC management had lied and the BBC had an anti-American obsession. It had also incorrectly attributed quotes to the reporter Andrew Gilligan.

Even taking into account that this was a personal view item, the strength and number of allegations that John Gibson made against the BBC meant that Fox News should have offered the BBC an opportunity to respond.


Fox News was therefore in breach of Sections 2.1 (respect for truth), 2.7 (opportunity to take part), and 3.5(b) (personal view programmes - opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence) of the Programme Code.


----

In effect... the British Programme Standards system requires even Opinion/Editorials make statements that are based on fact... distortions and lying are not tolerated... if someone is being accused of something they are required to give that person equal time to respond to allegations.

Fox as it is today would not exist with the same rules in effect here.

Talking heads don't get a free ride just because they're "personalities".

Just saw it. Was really good except the corny end.

They really made the case very well using many former fox producers and reporters and a ton of clips.

Some good points:

. the wife of the reporter following Bush's 2000 campaign was actually campaigning for him. They show a conversation between bush and the reporter where the reporter is basically polishing his knob.

. Shows through clips how they really pushed the flip-flop thing

. The use of "some people say..." to make radical political statements that can't be attributed to anyone but fox management.

. The memos showing deliberate efforts to undermine kerry campaign.

There is a whole, whole lot more as well. Watch it.

Part of the NY Times Review.

"Some will say that the argument is unfair and unbalanced. Fox's critics the most famous are Walter Cronkite and the inevitable Al Franken appear relaxed, reasonable and good-humored, sitting in front of shelves of books and making their points in measured tones of voice. The on-air Fox personalities, on the other hand, appear to be a prize collection of blowhards and hyenas, with little regard for either journalistic niceties or basic good manners.

But whose fault is it, really, if they come off badly? They are, after all, on television. What we see must be what they and Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch want us to see. It must also be what we or at least the millions who watch Fox News Channel, including some who shut out virtually every other source of news want to see. Which is, according to "Outfoxed," cause for alarm, and for action.

Watching Bill O'Reilly's belligerent, boorish "interview" with Jeremy Glick, whose father died in the attack on the World Trade Center and who came to oppose the administration's military response to 9/11, is enough to make you wish that the ghost of Joseph Welch would enter the studio and inquire, at long last, after Mr. O'Reilly's sense of decency. But those days when Welch undid Senator Joseph R. McCarthy on live television, and when that medium was new enough to bring a promise of transparency and truth-telling into the public consciousness are long past."

Larry Elder pops in with a little piece about how mainstream media keeps adding labels to demonize, marginalize or simple politicize actions of Republicans.

Elder

Nick

WorldNetDaily again, huh?

A fine journalistic example.

I like the first paragraph of their featured "columnist" Ann Coulter that's up there today:

Talk about eye-rolling!

So you are saying a clearly biased columnist is the same as supposedly unbiased mainstream journalists?

Nick

I have acquired an illicit copy and I am watching it now.

It basically tells you what you already knew.

I never saw Glick on the O'Reilly show. O'Reilly is an emotional trainwreck and, as Al Franken perfectly labels him, a big splotchy bully. It was disgusting to watch him invoke Glick's parents the way he did. Absolutely disgusting.

I loved the bit where, when asked who the liberal commentators on FOXNews Murdoch says, "Alan Colmes.... uhh.... uh... Greta van Sustren... uh.... ... ... ... ..."

I'm gonna buy a copy and then pass it along. Funny thing is that this isn't really news to the informed. The Bush-At-Any-Cost fanatics will whine about a "liberal media" pinko commie plot, and the ignorant masses will probably never even know about it.


Wow, Elder and Worldnetdaily in the same sentence. What a double whammy. Solid sources.


I can't wait for the "Kerry Body Count" dot com references.