>>> I was about to ask "is it really this bad?"
>>
>>> And then I realised the obviousness of the answer...
>>
>> You know that a news channel is really bad when even foreigners are aware
>> of how bad and biased it is.
>
> Actually I know nothing about Fox. I was operating more along the lines
> of "if their 'news' as the same level of factual accuracy as most of the
> media coverage in my country, they can't be very accurate..."

FOX News and the FOX network are two different beasts.

FOX News has a definite conservative bias and will either ignore or 
distort facts that go against their narrative.  They will also make 
ludicrous assertions and end them with a question mark, such as "Is 
Obama a secret communist?" to hide behind the excuse of "hey! we're only 
asking questions..."  A few years ago, one reporter refused to report 
something that he felt was factually incorrect and he was fired.  He 
sued for wrongful dismisal and lost.  The case was appealed all the way 
to the Supreme Court and they ruled that FOX News was under no 
obligation to tell the truth under the free speech clause of the 1st 
amendment of the the US Constitution.

Meanwhile, the FOX network airs shows that are considered edgy and often 
ruffle the feathers of the more conservative listeners.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 31/05/2011 12:02 PM, clipka wrote:
> > Am 31.05.2011 12:34, schrieb Stephen:
> >
> >> From my understanding, Fox News is very accurate because they get it
> >> directly from God.:-P
> >
> > Ah - so it /is/ hearsay after all :-)
>
> No, Hearsay. ;-)
>
> --
> Regards
>      Stephen

Hearsay/Heresy...   to-MAY-to/to-MAH-to   ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 31/05/2011 13:42, Francois Labreque wrote:

> A few years ago, one reporter refused to report
> something that he felt was factually incorrect and he was fired. He sued
> for wrongful dismisal and lost. The case was appealed all the way to the
> Supreme Court and they ruled that FOX News was under no obligation to
> tell the truth under the free speech clause of the 1st amendment of the
> the US Constitution.

Now here's a peculiar thing. Many people seem to hold the opinion that 
"the media" publishes news as a service to the public, so that we can 
all live in an informed democracy. They seem to regard the media as the 
sacred guardians of of the Holy Truth, and speak about journalistic 
freedom as being vital to our existence and so forth.

As far as I can tell, this point of view has no basis in reality. I can 
find no evidence of any law requiring them to tell the truth, or 
anything remotely resembling the truth. [This presumably varies by 
country.] The various media companies are [in general] not public 
services, but commercial entities. By definition, their only purpose for 
existing is to generate a profit. They are not /required/ to tell the 
truth and they have no /incentive/ to tell the truth.

And yet... the majority of people seem to assume that the media always 
tells the truth, with only slight exaggerations or inaccuracies. This 
makes no sense to me.

(Think about it: On any given day, what *really* happened in the world 
today is probably pretty boring. Far less attention-grabbing than 
whatever fictional nonsense you would make up off the top of your head. 
So which version of reality are you gonna print, given that you want to 
sell the maximum number of copies?)

Post a reply to this message

Am 31.05.2011 13:20, schrieb Stephen:

>>> From my understanding, Fox News is very accurate because they get it
>>> directly from God.:-P
>>
>> Ah - so it /is/ hearsay after all :-)
>
> No, Hearsay. ;-)

To be read with Scottish dialect I guess :-P

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> they have no /incentive/ to tell the truth.

  Not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

  Many countries have organizations whose purpose is to make sure that
the media doesn't break the ethical standards. (Of course this doesn't
mean these organizations cannot be biased.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 5/31/2011 12:58 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> I was about to ask "is it really this bad?"
>>
>>> And then I realised the obviousness of the answer...
>>
>> You know that a news channel is really bad when even foreigners are aware
>> of how bad and biased it is.
>
> Actually I know nothing about Fox. I was operating more along the lines
> of "if their 'news' as the same level of factual accuracy as most of the
> media coverage in my country, they can't be very accurate..."

The man that owns Fox is.. Well, he seems to be mild conspiracy nuts, 
mostly right wing politically, with a with other quirks. He seems to be 
more "Tea Party" than "Conservative", in his leanings, but then a lot of 
Libertarians tend to lean that way, without being quite so insane. In 
any case, you can't get by with saying anything on Fox that contradicts 
Fox, or makes it sponsors look bad, etc. By comparison, MSNBC *has* 
occasionally commented on the positions of their own other shows, their 
company, and others, way more openly.

Basically, all the evidence suggests, including statements the man made 
himself on occasion, that Fox is *very specifically* the political 
mouthpiece of one single man, with a very specific view, and that its 
completely failure to resemble reality has only become serious when 
someone like Beck gets so bad that they lost nearly all sponsors for his 
show. Until then, no one there cared to contradict him, or say anything 
bad about him, or otherwise rock the boat. Now that he is out, you start 
to hear some commentary on how he was a bit off his rocker, once in a 
while. But, only after his show got pulled.

Its PT Barnum does the news, sans the intent to entertain and amaze, but 
instead evangelize.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/31/2011 5:58 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 31/05/2011 13:42, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
>> A few years ago, one reporter refused to report
>> something that he felt was factually incorrect and he was fired. He sued
>> for wrongful dismisal and lost. The case was appealed all the way to the
>> Supreme Court and they ruled that FOX News was under no obligation to
>> tell the truth under the free speech clause of the 1st amendment of the
>> the US Constitution.
>
> Now here's a peculiar thing. Many people seem to hold the opinion that
> "the media" publishes news as a service to the public, so that we can
> all live in an informed democracy. They seem to regard the media as the
> sacred guardians of of the Holy Truth, and speak about journalistic
> freedom as being vital to our existence and so forth.
>
The reason for this has been two fold - 1) Up until Fox, no one 
"intentionally" distorted facts, in any grand, unified, and clear way, 
intended to push an agenda, or at least on anything like this scale and 
apparently perception of legitimacy, 2) for the most part, the news 
media *tried* to research things, and get their facts right, even if 
they often screwed up via time-bias (which is to say that enough time 
passes that any correction becomes meaningless, especially when stated 
in a 30 second blurb, instead of the 30 minute special on the subject 
they ran previously).

Fox is notable in that they ignore the very idea of trying to report 
facts, they do about as much "research" as your average creationist, and 
they *****never***** correct their own statements, unless they 
correction makes their sides politics look better, after the correction, 
and they have enough material to make sure the correct version sticks 
(even if they have to make up shit to fill in the time).

We really need a clear legal definition of News in this country, clear 
standards as to how you correct errors, and, more to the point, a way to 
very clearly, without resorting to shit like libel and slander, which 
you will never be able to nail them on, to differentiate between what is 
actual news, or tries to be, and what chooses to become to video 
equivalent of "Weekly World News". If we cannot, and will not, make a 
clear distinction, we can't trust any of them, since at any moment they 
could all start intentionally lying to us, about everything, and no one 
would need a Chinese like, government run, propaganda bureau , to make 
it happen. Mind, they would all probably be making up completely 
contradictory lies, but that hardly helps, if you can't find the real 
facts buried any place among them.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 31 May 2011 15:43:23 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Basically, all the evidence suggests, including statements the man made
> himself on occasion, that Fox is *very specifically* the political
> mouthpiece of one single man,

Actually, the impression I get of Rupert Murdoch is that he's in business 
to make money.  If he could make money from more a progressive/liberal 
audience, he'd probably appear to be on the other end of the spectrum.

He seems to me to be mostly an opportunist, taking advantage of people 
who aren't willing to think for themselves.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 01/06/2011 02:27, Jim Henderson wrote:

> He seems to me to be mostly an opportunist, taking advantage of people
> who aren't willing to think for themselves.

Isn't the whole point of news producers to basically produce whatever 
people want to read, because it's more profitable that way?

Post a reply to this message

On 31/05/2011 20:20, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> they have no /incentive/ to tell the truth.
>
>    Not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards
>
>    Many countries have organizations whose purpose is to make sure that
> the media doesn't break the ethical standards. (Of course this doesn't
> mean these organizations cannot be biased.)

Sure. There are voluntary codes of practise. But as far as I know, 
there's nothing to stop anybody that wants to from completely 
disregarding these at will.

Post a reply to this message