FOX news

[Wire]

You know, in the very beginning I applauded FOX news when they first came on the spot (how long ago, 10 years? 15?). It was refreshing back then to see something new besides the same stodgy headlines that I'd been seeing for years. I stopped watching the news because of the negativity in most broadcasts.

Now, in the last couple of years, I have seen the most aggregious sensationalism coming from basically one source: FOX news. The recent Sherrod case is a prime example. I listened to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert bash FOX news, but until recently I admit I haven't done much research into it. With the Sherrod case, I've gone back and did the research, and I can't believe the crap I've been seeing coming from FOX.

What happened?!? Whatever happened to "news integrity?" Did it go the way of the DoDo birds because of sensationalism and Nielsen Ratings???

Give me back the Walter Kronkites of a by-gone era. Give me back Tom Brokaw and the like, where news wasn't about necessarily about sensationalism, but about reporting facts and protecting the rights of Americans. Yeah, news can succumb to Nielsen Ratings, but not at the expense of the integrity of the report.

Flour FOX news! It's people like them that make people like me so damn apathetic about the world.

( Of course, that's the sensationalist in me ... but still, come on ... like they DIDN'T KNOW the truth would come out EVENTUALLY!?! How many times has it happened already?!??!)

[Wire]

And to clarify, I know FOX states they didn't produce the story, but they DID report it ...without having all the facts (or having them, didn't care).

I did journalism in high school for a very short while, but I learned very quickly that the first rule of journalism is FACT!

I think it's high-time that journalism across American return to the old era tenets that made them so great ... tenets that showed Americans the truth of Vietnam, Korea, and the like. Where they didn't give a crap about JFK dallying with Marilyn Monroe (although they reported it, they didn't sensationalize it, necessarily), and where facts were studied, investigated, and detailed BEFORE the report went on air.

Screw the news these days. I'm tired of it!

[Scout7]

All you need to know:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/ ... 848/568666

[Bendrui]

Rachel Maddow ripped fox news apart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTdSKjYxAHY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qAQ3XXxKAY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8SPPl-N39E

[Wire]

Scout, that link makes me even more mad at FOX news. *Edit* And the courts for agreeing with them.

I'm just certainly glad there are some people out there that are calling them out on it. I just wish there was more of a push for more accurate reporting.

[Scout7]

The courts have ruled that under the current laws a news channel is free to knowingly lie.

The laws need to change.

Period.

Until we get control of our media again, we will never have democracy.

[Wire]

I think this is what galls me the most. Yeah, freedom of speech ... I'm a huge supporter of it. But when "freedom" ends up doing harm or shackling others, it's not really freedom anymore.

Freedom of speech was meant to allow dissenting voices, not for outright lying. It's like the current gun laws (not that I want to get into the argument, because I DO understand both sides of the issue) ... the right to bear arms was intended to allow states to raise a militia should an invasion take place ... not to allow the average joe the ability to have an AK-47 for no reason other than to boost a shortcoming he might have. . In this day and age, the likelihood of an invasion is virtually zero ... meaning it's not necessary to organize militias (we're not talking about the "private" or "joe blow" militias, but militias which are organized by the STATE GOVERNMENT ... most people forget this fact).

FOX news goes beyond freedom of speech, almost to the point of slander/libel, especially in this case. If I had done the exact same thing, I would have been sued and most likely would have lost. FOX news should be held to the same standards, irregardless of freedom of speech ... you don't have the right to sensationalize something that ultimately destroys a single person.

I'm only thankful that, though disappointed and disillusioned, Sherrod has acted with uncharacteristic aplomb. She's done everything right in this, and has still been vilified. But it's looking like she's going to come out of this a lot better off than she started. Small caveat, but at least it's there.

[Wire]

And while I was waiting to post this, I was reminded of another Freedom of Speech court case that I think pertains to this case. Schenck v. United States in 1919.

Basically, it boils down to shouting FIRE in a crowded theater, when a fire is not present. This could cause a panic and injury (or death) to others. This is not considered protected speech. By the same token, FOX pretty much cried FIRE, and ruined a woman's reputation, her job, and her livelihood.

I think the original case revolved around distributing anti-draft propaganda during WW1. But Oliver Wendell Holmes used the shouting FIRE in a theater as one of his arguments.

*EDIT* had to look it up now that I brought it up. Wikipedia quoted this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

I equate someone falsely losing her job and livelihood in the same category as this.

[Wire]

Another version of what happened, from the LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/ne ... 690.column

[Jager]

you guys do realize that the world view presented by Madow, Olberman, Kos etc. is just as twisted, manipulative and dishonest as that presented by Fox right?

[Bendrui]

you guys do realize that the world view presented by Maddow, Olberman, Kos etc. is just as twisted, manipulative and dishonest as that presented by Fox right?

Actually, I disagree with you. They may have a bias, but it's not nearly as extreme as Fox, aka republican pravda.

However, if that's what you think, then is ANY of the professional media telling anything close to the truth, in your view?

[Scout7]

you guys do realize that the world view presented by Madow, Olberman, Kos etc. is just as twisted, manipulative and dishonest as that presented by Fox right?

Not sure how one would go about measuring this. I suppose it is subjective and it wouldn't be too hard to argue this stance, but I personally don't buy that statement.

I watch quite a bit from all sides and I honestly believe fox news is true evil. That is my subjective oppinion.

Personally I can draw a moral equivalence between fox and Stewart/Colbert, but there is a very key difference. Stewart and Colbert never make any claim to be news programs. If Fox changed their slogan from "fair and balanced" to "news for conservatives" or "comedy from the right" I would no longer consider them evil.

If anyone honestly thinks Fox is in the same category as MSNBC, I strongly suggest watching the documentary "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism".

And if there is a similar documentary setting the record straight on MSNBC, I would love to hear about it so I can watch it.

[Bendrui]

At least MSNBC is not involved in this
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content ... nBeck4.jpg

Beck and O'Reilly are business partners, so O'Reilly shares in Beck's Goldline profits.

For all media, readers/viewers are the primary goal. as this video makes clear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6b7Z8CzJgI

and that's the potential bias I mentioned.

Roger Ailes was a Republican operative for many years, and now he forwards that agenda on Fox: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/busin ... wanted=all

I doubt the head of MSNBC was a Democratic operative. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Wire]

It's kind of funny, speaking of MSNBC ... ages ago, I watched MSNBC more than CNN. Then when the movie Deep Impact came out, my heart was broken. Although it added somewhat to the realism of the movie, I later realized they were beginning to sell out. I only catch them once in a blue moon now. When I finally clued in that the MS stood for Microsoft, all hope was dashed completely.

CNN is my last bastion of hope, but even that has a lot of negative and sensationalized rhetoric.

[Saighead]

At work, we watch CNN and Fox News. Professionally, we pretty much agree that CNN leans left; while Fox leans very right, and loses credibility when Glen Beck comes on. But it balances out and keeps the military/DOD types fairly happy, who seem to split on party lines more evenly than people might expect.

But nobody wants to watch MSNBC (which leans obscenely left, unless they're trying to sensationalize). It doesn't take an intel analyst to know their input is just pure distraction.