On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:46:48 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 22-4-2011 20:53, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:19:28 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> IIRC the loophole here is that you can report that someone has an
>>> opinion as a fact. To spread an idea you only need to locate someone
>>> who has that as an opinion and if that fails have someone from your
>>> own staff in a 'discussion' program express that opinion. After that
>>> it is factual news.
>>
>> That's different than the 'reporter' giving their opinion during the
>> news and stating it as a factual statement.
>>
>> It's one thing to say "John thinks this is bad" and a reporter saying
>> "this is bad".
>>
>> The first is reporting.  The second is stating the reporter's opinion.
> 
> Sure, but is: 'many people think this is bad' reporting or opinion. 

That's arguably a provable or disprovable statement.  Thus it's 
reporting.  It can be false or inaccurate reporting, but that gets into 
fact checking rather than opining.

If he knowingly reports false information, though, then the reporter is 
pushing an opinion as fact (at least that's how I see it at this very 
moment, but that's very simplistic and I think it's probably more 
complicated than that).

> Oh they are definitely biased, but they are not consistently biased.
> They do broadcast programs and interviews that are biased different than
> some of the others. They will even give some time to people who are
> against specific Al Jazeera broadcasts.

I think it comes down to the willingness to give time to people who 
represent an opposite view.

>> regardless of the venue, but the fact that Fox News was banned from
>> broadcasting in Canada recently because they're *not* actually
>> providing news was quite telling, I thought.
> 
> I hadn't heard that. I have trouble finding a reliable source. That
> doesn't mean that I don't believe it, just that many regular media did
> not think it was news worthy. Possibly because it is already so for a
> long time and Fox was not the reason this news surfaced. Just one of
> news channels that can not get a license under current Canadian law. But
> still a field day for the blogger who did the maths.

Actually, IIRC, it was the Canadian government that rejected their 
application to broadcast in Canada, citing the fact that they make stuff 
up (or something along those lines).

Jim

Post a reply to this message