I wonder if Fox newz will report this story?.....nyuk! nyuk! vgkg

I suppose everyone believes the plaintiffs are giving an unbiased and unslanted report about the issue in their editorial piece as well. ;-) Yeah, right!

The way I read this is that it was a Fox affiliate station, not the Fox News network.

Maybe these guys can move on to cBS news next and get a jury award against them for the forged documents that they knew were forged but put on the air anyway.....hmmmmmmm.

Aubrey

Perhaps, these paragraphs would clarify the history and issues for those too challenged to read the whole article:

"In 1998, the two filed a civil court lawsuit seeking employee
protections under the state Whistleblower Act that resulted in a
$425,000 jury award to Akre. That verdict was then overturned in
2003 when an appeals court accepted Fox's defense that since it is not
technically against any law, rule, or regulation for a broadcaster to
distort the news, the journalists were never entitled to employee
protections as whistleblowers in the first place.

"Although Fox has always denied it ever ordered deliberate
distortions, the jury found the reports at the heart of the dispute were
"false, distorted, or slanted." While the appellate court ruling that
reversed the jury called the journalists' suit "without merit from its
inception," that finding was based solely upon the court's finding on
the threshold issue that the Whistleblower law did not apply in this
particular case. No court has ever disputed the jury's conclusions about
the news reports themselves."

According to this standard, Fx shouldn't be able to release anything in print or broadcast.

" "The FCC itself has clearly said `rigging or slanting the news is a
most heinous act against the public interest and indeed, there is no act
more harmful to the public's ability to handle its affairs' and who can
disagree?" Wilson added."

I assume all of the current 'reporters' are writing what they write according to their own free will rather than being ordered to do so by superiors.

"Fox's defense that since it is not technically against any law, rule, or regulation for a broadcaster to distort the news"

Perhaps Fox should adjust their slogan to :
"Fair & Balanced...in sort of a legal sense anyways"

"Although Fox has always denied it ever ordered deliberate
distortions, the jury found the reports at the heart of the dispute were "false, distorted, or slanted." While the appellate court ruling that reversed the jury called the journalists' suit "without merit from its inception," that finding was based solely upon the court's finding on
the threshold issue that the Whistleblower law did not apply in this particular case. No court has ever disputed the jury's conclusions about the news reports themselves."

Well regardless, I can hardly wait until all the news has to meet the approval of a regulatory agency or a court concerning its truthfullness before it is released. That will really cure the problem when the courts and government agencies decide what is appropriate to air on the news and what is not. ;-)

That, after all, is exactly what some appear to be advocating while at the same time demanding freedom of the press, or is that freedom of the press that you agree with.

The BS in the newz used to be easier to swallow back in the old 30 minute segment daze. 24 hour BS is now akin to brainwashing. So the choices are : never watch the news...or, watch all of it on all outlets so that one can sort thru all the BS....and then believe what you want...or go nutz, ha.

Apparently each outlet's priority is to attract & keep their audience and they'll do whatever it takes to up their ratings, including especially slanted reporting and OP/Eds that are aimed at their "special" base viewers. They report stories in a keyhole manner that their viewers want to hear. I've got 2 brothers who only watch Fox newz and nothing else. If they watched only CNN or MSNBC or CBS, etc I'd be on their case about that too. Personally my least Favorite is Fox, probably because they're so snotty about it, ha, but I do watch them (or rather keep an eye on them ;o). vgkg

Well,

The heads have finally started to roll in cBS's "Memo-Gate" scandal.

Four people so far and more to come for sure.

Dan Rather has been distorting the news for years now and it has finally come home to roost.

cBS really needs to learn from this and re-evaluate the way that they do business. If they don't they will be out of the news business very shortly.

Monte,

The courts have always been an arbitter of what one is allowed to air. Good journalists properly vett the story before it gets on the air. CBS did not and they are paying the price. All stories go through an editorial process. If after you air the story it turns out to be false then legal action is a possibility.

Who exactly is advocating a regulatory agency that will examine stories before they can be broadcast? I am perfectly happy with going after "evil doers" after they have commited the crime.

jb

thank god for the fox news channel, fair AND balanced. if i wanted bs i'd go to the barn tho there's less there than at cBS, abc, nbc, cnn and msnbc.... does anyone still watch those left wing anti american socialist channels other than al franken, michael moore, the hollywood hypocrites, et al?

After the last post, I have a very strong urge to tune into Cbs, NBC, et al.

It is intersting how ones bias makes it difficult to see ones bias.

jb

I would like someone to give some examples of where they think FOX News Channel is biased. On every issue they discuss they have the conservative viewpoint and the liberal viewpoint.

They have a variety of different shows which feature both conservative and liberal hosts. In fact, I would challenge anyone to show me a network news operation which offers such a mix of viewpoints.

There really aren't any out there which offer the viewer the advantage of both viewpoints on the story or issue.

Not trying to stir anything up here, just want to know where you are coming from when you jump on FOX as being bad news.

Aubrey

I admit not to watch much cable news and even less FOX other than some specials. What I don't recall watching is much liberal viewpoint on FOX. And please, pass up the Colmes' example as the straightman of the comedy duo of the H and C Show.

When I want a liberal/progressive view, I go to appropriate outlets (and rarely to corporate tv media) nor do I go to these latter media for conservative/libertarian takes on news of note. I surely don't need some talking head to tell me what to think about some event half way around the world or that same talking head to validate my own understanding.

It's really none of my business what you or you or you believe or behave as long as you're not bothering me or my family and community.

Aubrey,

Humans are not computers; we don't just process data, we react to and interpret data. Everything we see or hear is evaluated according to preconceived notions of how things work. How can we tell that foxnews is biased? All news is biased.

"We see the world not as it is, but as we are." Stephen Covey

Ryan

Ryan,

I agree with your assertion that it is a natural human tendency to process things according to our life experience.

What I don't understand though is how FOX can be roundly excoriated as being biased when they are the only network who provides a balance of viewpoints in regard to the issues.

No one has offered any examples as of yet to support the conclusion that FOX is out of balance.

Aubrey

FOX lays claim to being balanced but practices what in known in gardening circles would be called a balanced fertilizer: 69-0-1. In the world of information this is neither balanced nor fair, neither of which properties I expect from major or minor media.

Ryan is correct about human nature and the nature of human communication.

Marshall,

Again I have to ask what examples you are referring to.

Without examples, how can you make such a conclusion?

Aubrey

Aubrey, my position is that of an agnostic and a great skeptic of self-serving media hype. It is not worth my time to criticize in detail crap passing as media feed and froth.

Im'm finding It hard to take in ,,, Fox is SSOOOOO pro current administration that it makes me want to puke. As ;ong as they are pro Bush, they will get the pro Bush story, they will get more funding to promote the religious right wing and produce more (fundamentalist) propaganda.. By the way,, have you seen the photo-shop repo of bush/Hitler on Bushwatch. com???? Wether you are for or against, if you don't see the humor,,,, you need re-hab Love and Peace to AALL the hippies, darlene

Darlene,

you might be interested to know that religious/right wing etc. is not at all Bush's agenda. It is in the interest of those both on the left and the right to keep cultural issues on a low simmer and throw partisans the occasional bone. The only real agenda is to gain new power and consolidate those powers already gained. When control again moves to the "left" expect those on the right to suddenly remember their principles again (you know, government spending is a bad thing, increasing Federal authority will have unintended outcomes etc.)

Aubrey,

for a specific example, prior to the runup to the war the word "quagmire" was regularly heard coming from guests and anchors on most major media outlets regarding Iraq. If it was brought up at all on Fox, it was only to make fun of the concept. Another example was the expectation that it would be easy to gain the hearts and souls of those in Iraq. This was unrealistic baecause ultimately, all rule is at the consent of the governed. Citizens always outnumber their leaders by enough of a margin that no government can hope to stand without a fairly broad base of support.

Ryan

As for the liberal guests on FOX, compared to the far right conservatives that nest there most of these liberals are actually moderate. They'll occasonally interview a far leftest usually funny looking guy just to paint all liberals that color (many examples in history to demonize one's enemy). If one can see that CBS is liberal then it's easy to see Fox as conservative. FOX was the biggest pro-Iraqie invasion voice on TV and they continue to be the leading pro-Bush cheerleader network. MSNBC & post Turner CNN both have tried shifting to the right to try and capture some of FOX's base audience but with little success since they can't quite duplicate Fox's arrogant/snotty flavor.

Like I said above it's all about ratings & $$$ and little about fair news and balanced dialog, and not just on FOX. What is needed is more cerebral reporting and less adrenal emotions. Whatever happened to real investigative reporting? Journalists are becoming more sheepish, they're afraid of being blackballed, esp if they speak out against a president's policy during wartime. Most of the household name TV "reporter stars" had to have some bias against liberals/Kerry too, all of them make much more than $200K/year, it would seem hard to avoid that bias when one's own pocketbook is involved in an election outcome.
Less Hannity, More Sanity! (in all news) vgkg

There are none so blind as those that will not see or the French or ......

I have to get my senses checked; I'm perceiving some sort of echo here.

Maybe this would help:

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Strength to Love, 1963

Hey, who you calling conscientious?

Peace.
jb

For Aubrey:

I hope this ARTICLE & page of articles, studies & reports on Fox News linked below will serve to enlighten you somewhat .Fox's practices have been well (& often easily) documented - often by simple counting methods.

& then there was a recent, publicised study concluding that Fox viewers tend to be more often misinformed(disinformed) on current issues....

I'll see if I can find it.

FWIW, HTH

Here is a link that might be useful: Fox info

i have a hard time watching the fox news channel because they will add a commentary blurb to the end of the story right before they go to commericial. its like an after thought, presented with the story, but really its commentary and not fact. which bugs me. its verbalized almost subliminal commentary.

of course i have a hard time watching the other network news shows too. what programs are on tv tonight after the broadcast is not news. and lets make news stories to go along with the evening programming. drives me nuts.

"Media Matters for America inventoried all guests who appeared on FOX News, CNN, and MSNBC during the channels' Jan. 20 inauguration coverage. Between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Republican and conservative guests and commentators outnumbered Democrats and progressives 19 to 7 on FOX, 10 to 1 on CNN (not including a Republican-skewed panel featuring Ohio voters), and 13 to 2 on MSNBC. Moreover, the rare Democrat or progressive guest usually appeared opposite conservatives, whereas most Republican and conservative guests and commentators appeared solo or alongside fellow conservatives. In this survey, Media Matters included only those commentators whose party or political affiliation is generally known."

mediamatters.org

Carolb,

Thank you for your interest and for responding.

The only issue I have with the sources that you have noted is that they are both left-wing liberal organizations. They both have an admitted liberal agenda so, of course, are not objective.

As for the coverage on Inauguration Day, I am not surprised at all. Inauguration Day is always considered "the President's Day" regardless of the party in power. The opposition party is largely quiet as a matter of tradition and respect on Inauguration Day, thus the unbalanced guest list is not at all unusual. This theory is proven by the fact that all of the news outlets very out of balance on that day.

Aubrey

Now I always considered CNN to harbor Right Wing Liberals, thus accounting to the vacuousness of their reporting.

IOW, don't bother me w/ facts - I'm only interested in ideology?

Facts? Facts are largely irrelevant to the MESSAGE. Facts are to be finessed, nudged and nutured for consumption by targeted audiences.

Begging your pardon, Mr. M - my comment was directed @ the post prior to yours.

(Or were you aready aware of that?)

As I said above, the media's main goal is to attract and keep an audience. Presentation is #1 to entertain the viewers and will always out weigh the sometimes cold dull facts. They also love to focus on soap opera type stories that have little to do with real newz...I see the newz hounds drooling over the upcoming MJ circus now...

{{gwi:133588}}

Ms Cb, I knew that! I just added some frosting to the ideological cake.

Vgkg, is that a Vgdawg?

Nah Marshall not mine, just a googled up hound that resembles some of the so-called journalists out there. So many of them are manegy mutts looking for their next bone to chew on. MJ will be one of those looooong lasting chew bones the media hypes be picking their teeth with for at least the next 6 months....ugh

Haha - my fave recent quote:
"Americans are the best entertained AND least informed people in the world."

This little device should help those who don't want themselves or their children exposed to Fox:

{{gwi:133589}}

The "Fox Blocker"

Here is a link that might be useful: What the world has been waiting for

Althea-It amazes me how you find this stuff, but I appreciate a good laugh any time. I rate Fox News right up there with Comedy Central...no wait, that's not fair...I actually pay attention to Comedy Central :) Our local Fox station seems to go out of their way to find the most verbally challenged people they can interview when covering stories. Uh..not that there's anything wrong with that.