Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?

[Townsend]

What is a GOP anyways? I don't even know what it stands for.

I think it stands for Grand Old Party but I could be wrong about that...

 

[Art]

thanks buddy

I suggest you look at the contents of this 'yet another' pro-Israeli propaganda site before getting too happy. They appear to have changed tone considerably after the BBC threatened to sue them for defamation. The owner of this site is a Trevor Asserson, an jewish lawyer who moved to England from Israel in 1992 and undertakes work for large corporate interests and gov'ts (Israel perhaps?). So if you are interested in bias perhaps you should have a look at this messengers credentials.

You might also be interested in the organisations who accuse the BBC of pro-Israeli bias. To my mind it is a sure sign of impartiality when both sides feel hard done by.

BBC BIAS ON PALESTINE REPORTING


Islamic Human Rights Commission

The following URL on the BBC website titled “Israel’s History of Bomb Blasts” gives a detailed account of “some of the most deadly” Palestinian bomb attacks against Israelis since September 2000.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_easet/1197051.stm

The BBC in compiling this list has failed to mention even the death of one of the 1,694 Palestinians, approximately one fifth of them children who have so far died since September 2000. Whilst the BBC have taken care to also record the injuries sustained by Israelis, again not one of the 20,000 Palestinians injured, since the beginning of the second Intifada by bullet fire, tear gas, live ammunition, shrapnel from rockets and tank shells have been mentioned.

The compilation of this report if attempting to portray an unbiased account should have mentioned the Palestinian casualties. This failure to do so can only lead to the conclusion that a deliberate attempt has yet again been made by the BBC to portray the Palestinians as the cause of the current Middle East crises.

IHRC are encouraging all campaigners to contact the BBC at info@bbc.co.uk and express their deep concern over the continued
biased coverage of the Palestinian conflict.

 

[Art]

I think it stands for Grand Old Party but I could be wrong about that...

You are right it does stand for Grand Old Party.

 

[Burnsys]

i post the link to bbcwatch. not becouse i think bbc is antisemite, or somenthing like that, acording to the site bbcwatch it's pretty clear they try to hide Coalition disasters in irak, while being pretty fair reporting on the PA Israel issue,

 

[SOS2008]

So you just want to regulate what they are saying? So you would need the American news regulation organization then? How would such an organization be funded? I expect government funding would be nice...I see problems with that, major problems.

There are existing laws such as those regarding false advertisement (FTC), and existing regulatory agencies for broadcasts (e.g., FCC). The purpose is to maintain standards for what is provided to consumers. Programs with the word "news" in the title should report the news (unless like 'E!' it is clearly entertainment news, or ESPN with sports news, etc.), and consumers should be protected from inaccurate reports. This would apply to all news broadcasts.

But you are right to be concerned about government involvement, as we already have too much of that coming from the White House.

 

[Informal Logic]

The point about 24 X 7 news formats are part of the problem, but certainly responsible reporting, and even how free the press is in the US is increasingly in question. More on Fox News -

Fox News' programming features numerous on-air personalities who have furthered conservative misinformation, including Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor, who labels himself "a traditionalist"; Sean Hannity, who with Alan Colmes co-hosts Hannity & Colmes; and Brit Hume, host of Special Report, which is largely presented as straight news, though Hume injects his conservative perspective into much of the program's coverage. As a July 2004 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting study has documented, Special Report regularly features one-on-one interviews with subjects who are conservative far more often than liberal or moderate. The show also includes a discussion panel that often repeats Republican talking points. The morning program Fox & Friends features three hosts with conservative perspectives. Carl Cameron, the network's chief White House correspondent, and congressional correspondent Brian Wilson have both often presented ostensibly straight news programming with a slant that favors conservatives. Fox's other daytime programs (The Big Story with John Gibson, Fox News Live, and Your World with Neil Cavuto) and its marquee weekend news show (Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, which also airs on Fox Broadcasting Co. affiliates) also are presented as objective news sources, yet Media Matters for America has compiled substantial research indicating the network's coverage most often favors the conservative viewpoint and often blatantly misinforms viewers.

Fox's featured programs (Fox & Friends, The O'Reilly Factor, and Hannity & Colmes) often advance misinformation that furthers the conservative position on an entire slate of issues. Besides the network's self-identified conservatives, Fox's "straight news" anchors and reporters continually amplify misinformation that favors the conservative viewpoint and on occasion have even admitted their own conservative perspective.

For more (video, clips, and analysis) - http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?topic=FOX%20News%20Channel

In this same link it is stated that Fox has "consistently earned higher viewer ratings than the other cable news networks." Besides the conservative tendency to seek reaffirmation of their narrow, simplistic, and illogical views, could the ratings be due in large part to the sensationalization Americans love? Faux News is more like reality TV than a news agency, and it is contributing to the undoing of America.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh that thing. Well I guess you could interpret that as being able to say whatever they want, whenever they want... I mean, you don't let individuals have do that but I can see that's not the same as letting a giant corporation which proclaims everything they say as being true and "fair and balanced". We have to protect the companies too you know!

Huh? Freedom of the press covers the press and freedom of speech covers individual freedom of speech. They are virtually identical freedoms, but one applies to individuals and the other to the media.

What is a GOP anyways? I don't even know what it stands for.

Grand Old Party.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/03/politics/main531460.shtml

 

[russ_watters]

...and consumers should be protected from inaccurate reports. This would apply to all news broadcasts.

It appears you already know what the problem is with that:

But you are right to be concerned about government involvement, as we already have too much of that coming from the White House.

...so I can't believe you're still saying it. You're a liberal, for god's sake! You are supposed to be in favor of freedom!

This is one of the key freedoms we have - its the reason it's listed first in the Bill of Rights. It just astonishes me that so many of you are against it. I don't know whether I should hope you're only against it when it favors republicans or just against it altogether. Is being inconsistent better or worse than not believing in these freedoms at all?

Maybe it would help if you guys went through the exercise of actually designing the institution that you are suggesting should exist. What would it look like? Who would run it? How would it work? Etc. For ideas on how to design it, may I suggest reading 1984?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Fox News? Any "news" agency that employs Mark Furman [crooked cop from OJ trial who moved to Idaho - skinhead neo-nazi land] deserves to be laughed off the air. The real crime here is that Americans are too lazy to get better information.

But we can't start screwing with the freedom of the press. That would be more dangerous than a rogue "news" agency.

 

[Smurf]

It appears you already know what the problem is with that: ...so I can't believe you're still saying it. You're a liberal, for god's sake! You are supposed to be in favor of freedom!

Everyone's in favor of freedom, the difference is how they want to achieve it. I think what you're thinking of is Libertarian though.

 

[Smurf]

Maybe it would help if you guys went through the exercise of actually designing the institution that you are suggesting should exist. What would it look like? Who would run it? How would it work? Etc. For ideas on how to design it, may I suggest reading 1984?

It's quite simple. You pass legistlation and says that News organizations need to present a story in a factual, fair and non-partisan manner. Everything else is handled by the courts. If a news agency breaks these, they get fined depending on what their ratings were when they aired the false story. The higher the ratings, the higher the fine.

 

[Burnsys]

In January 2005, Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY) introduced legislation calling on broadcasters to provide balance and diversity in their news coverage. H.R. 501, or the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act (the FAB Act), would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine to ensure that broadcasters "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance." We, the undersigned, support Representative Slaughter's efforts to restore balance to the media and call on Congress to pass this measure

http://www.fairnessdoctrine.com/

 

[Informal Logic]

It appears you already know what the problem is with that: ...so I can't believe you're still saying it. You're a liberal, for god's sake! You are supposed to be in favor of freedom!

This is one of the key freedoms we have - its the reason it's listed first in the Bill of Rights. It just astonishes me that so many of you are against it. I don't know whether I should hope you're only against it when it favors republicans or just against it altogether. Is being inconsistent better or worse than not believing in these freedoms at all?

Maybe it would help if you guys went through the exercise of actually designing the institution that you are suggesting should exist. What would it look like? Who would run it? How would it work? Etc. For ideas on how to design it, may I suggest reading 1984?

You mention Dan Rather all the time as an example of inaccurate reporting and how pleased you are that he was held accountable. So I take it you are against the bill of rights? Not to mention pundits on the White House payroll, and pressure for agencies to retract stories that were true. Do you think this favors a free press?

 

[Townsend]

But we can't start screwing with the freedom of the press. That would be more dangerous than a rogue "news" agency.

Absolutely...I cannot believe people don't recognize the dangers of messing with freedoms. It might seem like a good idea when it works to your benefit but consider for a moment how it might come back to bite you in the bum...

 

[SOS2008]

From the USINFO.STATE.GOV site:

If Americans assume that free speech is the core value of democracy, they nonetheless disagree over the extent to which the First Amendment protects different kinds of expression. Does it, for example, protect hate speech directed at particular ethnic or religious groups? Does it protect "fighting words" that can arouse people to immediate violence? Is obscene material covered by the First Amendment's umbrella? Is commercial speech — advertisements or public relations material put out by companies — deserving of constitutional protection? Over the last several decades, these questions have been part of the ongoing debate both within the government and in public discussion, and in many areas no consensus has yet emerged. That, however, is neither surprising nor disturbing. Freedom is an evolving concept, and, as we confront new ideas, the great debate continues. The emergence of the Internet is but the latest in a series of challenges to understanding what the First Amendment protection of speech means in contemporary society.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/speech.htm

Since Media Matters grew in response to conservative organizations like Accuracy in Media, here is some information from Source Watch of interest:

A year-long study by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf ) reported that Americans who relied on the Fox News Channel for their coverage of the Iraq war were the most likely to believe misinformation about the war, whatever their political affiliation may be. Those mistaken facts, the study found, increased viewers' support for the war.

The study found that, in general, people who watched Fox News were, more than for other sources, convinced of several untrue propositions which were actively promoted by the Bush administration and the cheerleading media led by Fox, in rallying support for the invasion of Iraq:
(percentages are of all poll respondents, not just Fox watchers)
· 57% believed the falsity that Iraq gave substantial support to Al-Qaida, or was directly involved in the September 11 attacks. (48% after invasion)
· 69% believed the falsity that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 attacks.
· 22% believed the falsity that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. (21% believed that chem/bio weapons had actually been used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq during 2003)

In the composite analysis of the PIPA study, 80% of Fox news watchers had one of more of these misperceptions; in contrast to 71% for CBS and 27% who tuned to NPR/PBS.

As the Washington Post reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27061-2003Oct14.html ), "The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were 'the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions.' Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three."

As Alternet reported (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16892 ), "For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far. Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between."

In the Project for Excellence in Journalism's "State of the News Media 2005" concluded that Fox was "the most one-sided of all major news outlets." On Iraq, 25% of 2,000 stories analyzed were negative and 20% were positive. "Fox News Channel was twice as likely to be positive than negative, while CNN and MSNBC were evenhanded." Also, "with the exception of Republicans who prefer Fox News," American's don't seek out news sources that reinforce their beliefs. (http://stateofthemedia.com/2005/index.asp )

As for government being separate from a free press:

Fox's close relationship with Republicans

...former Fox News producer, Charlie Reina, explained how bias permeates the Fox newsroom. "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it," he wrote.

"The Memo was born with the Bush administration, early in 2001, and, intentionally or not, has ensured that the administration's point of view consistently comes across on FNC. This year, of course, the war in Iraq became a constant subject of The Memo. But along with the obvious - information on who is where and what they'll be covering - there have been subtle hints as to the tone of the anchors' copy," he wrote.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News

 

[Townsend]

If Americans assume that free speech is the core value of democracy, they nonetheless disagree over the extent to which the First Amendment protects different kinds of expression. Does it, for example, protect hate speech directed at particular ethnic or religious groups? Does it protect "fighting words" that can arouse people to immediate violence? Is obscene material covered by the First Amendment's umbrella? Is commercial speech — advertisements or public relations material put out by companies — deserving of constitutional protection? Over the last several decades, these questions have been part of the ongoing debate both within the government and in public discussion, and in many areas no consensus has yet emerged. That, however, is neither surprising nor disturbing. Freedom is an evolving concept, and, as we confront new ideas, the great debate continues. The emergence of the Internet is but the latest in a series of challenges to understanding what the First Amendment protection of speech means in contemporary society.

This is talking about people agreeing about about how far the first amendment goes and it's more or less a who cares kind of point. I think it's clear that people will disagree about anything and everything. There is no need to even point it out in my opinion...

And then you have a link that talks about some studies that show Fox is one sided but no one is contesting that...

A side point is that that study talks about what people who watch Fox news believe...um...has anyone considered that maybe they want to believe what they believe? People have that right you know. Taking away Fox news will just create a market void that some other news station will fill. In America the consumer is king and if they want a right wing news station then that is what they are going to get...Taking away Fox news will be like getting rid of napster...it won't do any good...

And a free press means they don't have to listen to the government but if they want to listen they may do so. Don't assume that freedom of press means that the press has to avoid listening to the government because that would not even be a free press since the press would not be free to speak out against or for their government.

But if it helps you sleep to think about fox news reporting a liberal agenda then please do so...I just hope you realize that people will just stop watching Fox and then go get their fix from somewhere else...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

27% who tuned to NPR/PBS

And I don't even see how it could be that high. I watch PBS almost every night and I don't see how there could be any confusion. Unless of course people are unduly influenced by people on the internet. Say, by people who are more interested in constructing misleading and "winning" arguments, rather than to ascertain the facts.

Perhaps the people of the United States should file suit against Fox for fraud. Maybe I should? Maybe the parents of a dead soldier should if this influenced his or her decision to join up.

Nonetheless, you don't want government sponsored truth police. There could be nothing worse. This, for example, is why Nazi's are still allowed to exist and hold rallies here in the US.

 

[Townsend]

Nonetheless, you don't want government sponsored truth police. There could be nothing worse. This, for example, is why Nazi's are still allowed to exist and hold rallies here in the US.

Well that and the fact that everyone is entitled to their beliefs...a country cannot outlaw racism and still be considered free by any reasonable measure.

 

[Informal Logic]

If Americans assume that free speech is the core value of democracy, they nonetheless disagree over the extent to which the First Amendment protects different kinds of expression. Does it, for example, protect hate speech directed at particular ethnic or religious groups? Does it protect "fighting words" that can arouse people to immediate violence? Is obscene material covered by the First Amendment's umbrella? Is commercial speech — advertisements or public relations material put out by companies — deserving of constitutional protection? Over the last several decades, these questions have been part of the ongoing debate both within the government and in public discussion, and in many areas no consensus has yet emerged. That, however, is neither surprising nor disturbing. Freedom is an evolving concept, and, as we confront new ideas, the great debate continues. The emergence of the Internet is but the latest in a series of challenges to understanding what the First Amendment protection of speech means in contemporary society.

We have discussed the premise of shouting fire in a theatre. Is it okay to shout WMD under the guise of fair and balanced news inciting people to support an act of war?

Fox has already been sued for fraud regarding their logo:

In December 2003, the Independent Media Institute, which publishes the Alternet online magazine, brought a petition before the United States Patent and Trademark Office seeking the cancellation of Fox's trademark in the phrase "Fair & Balanced". The petition argued that the phrase was so widely used by others as to have no particular association with Fox, and that Fox's use of the phrase was "notoriously misdescriptive of [Fox]'s presentation of news content". As of April 2005, the proceeding was still pending.

In the meantime:

In 2005, MSNBC began using a new slogan entitled "Fair and Accurate."

Hah, that is great. And then this:

In 2002, a small website called Agitproperties.com began selling T-shirts and other merchandise with a "FAUX News" logo parodying Fox's logo. The products included one that used "We Distort, You Comply" as a parody of Fox's slogan "We Report, You Decide". Lawyers for Fox, charging an infringement of Fox's rights, demanded that the company cease selling all such merchandise and threatened litigation if Agitproperties did not comply. [29] As of April 2005, the "FAUX News" products are no longer listed on the Agitproperties website.

Hey, what happened to freedom of speech here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News#Trademark_disputes

 

[Townsend]

Hey, what happened to freedom of speech here?

It's called a trade mark and has nothing to do with this thread...

Like if I started a company called Mikerowsoft...I would be in some serious trouble with MS...but it would not be an infringement on my freedom of speech since I could call MS every name in the book and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well that and the fact that everyone is entitled to their beliefs...a country cannot outlaw racism and still be considered free by any reasonable measure.

Racism? It is the American Nazi [political] Party. Race has nothing to do with it.

 

[Townsend]

Racism? It is the American Nazi [political] Party. Race has nothing to do with it.

I may have worded that badly but trust me we are saying the same thing here.

Racism was just meant to be an example of something that is really bad and all of society would be better off without it but at the same time it should be allowed to exist...

Do you see what I am saying?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Racism was just meant to be an example of something that is really bad

Ah, I thought you were taking my comment as some kind of anti-German mentality.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The differences between entertainment in the movie theatres or video stores versus news broadcasts via public airwaves is similar to the the do-not-call provisions of the FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule in the interest of consumers and having some power over the inflow to their homes (and versus passive advertisement) with "public" being a key word. Telling people to change the channel or turn the TV set off does not suffice.

There is a vast difference between calls from telemarketers and television broadcasts. Fox news doesn't ring up a connection to your TV or send you an e-mail or knock on your door to try to get you to watch when ever it starts it's program. You need to have a TV and ture into that station and sit through their program all of which are your own choices.
We don't have Orwellian vidscreens in all our homes broadcasting news at us.
I seriously can't believe that you, after how angry you have been with the current administration over their lies, could possibly even consider giving our government control over what is to be deemed fair and balanced news. Imagine that the government doesn't even have to track down news agencies to give them their canned news anymore but almost all of them start going to the government asking for the canned news because they are afraid of the fines they may have to pay for broadcasting something that the government will decide is "untrue".
You're afraid of the consequences of our government lying to it's people but when you advocate that same government regulating the information that gets to us that seriously scares the bejeesus out of me.

 

[SOS2008]

I’m not advocating banning FOX News. My comments are in reference to existing laws and regulatory agencies.

First are the laws regarding truth in advertising:

Two conflicting principles are involved in advertising law. On the one hand, the First Amendment, which is part of the U.S. Constitution and grants us the right of free speech, protects all forms of communication, including advertising (referred to by lawyers as "commercial speech"). On the other hand, the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. Most state constitutions similarly give state governments the power to regulate commerce conducted solely within that state.

In exercising its power over interstate commerce, the Congress has enacted two statutes that have the greatest effect on advertising. These are the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act and the Lanham Act.

The FTC Act states that false advertising is a form of unfair and deceptive commerce. The term "false advertising" has been broadly construed. As you might expect, the term includes advertisements that are in fact untrue. However, the term false advertising extends well beyond untrue advertisements. It also includes advertisements that make representations that the advertiser has no reasonable basis to believe, even if the representations turn out to be true. An example would be an advertisement for a photocopier machine which stated that the machine used less toner than any comparable machine. The advertiser would have committed false advertising if it had no reasonable basis to believe the truth of this claim (such as through comparative tests), even if it turned out to be true.

http://www.poznaklaw.com/articles/falsead.htm

On what basis does FOX News substantiate their claim of “fair and balanced” news? In fact there is immense documentation to the contrary.

Regarding privacy and active versus passive inflow of media into American homes, here’s an article in the SF Chronicle criticizing Bush for signing the Do-Not-Call bill:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/10/02/EDGAM21ROV1.DTL

The Supreme Court has said it is not constitutional for the government to dictate to publishers and newspapers about what is and is not acceptable to print (with exception of libel laws). However, the government regulates and licenses broadcasters (which involves physical property):

The Public Interest Standard in Television Broadcasting

Federal oversight of all broadcasting has had two general goals: to foster the commercial development of the industry and to ensure that broadcasting serves the educational and informational needs of the American people.

…Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have sometimes concluded that the broadcast marketplace by itself is not adequately serving public needs. Accordingly, numerous efforts have been undertaken over the past 70 years to encourage or require programming or airtime to enhance the electoral process, governance, political discourse, local community affairs, and education. Some initiatives have sought to help underserved audience-constituencies such as children, minorities, and individuals with disabilities.

In essence, the public interest standard in broadcasting has attempted to invigorate the political life and democratic culture of this Nation. Commercial broadcasting has often performed this task superbly. But when it has fallen short, Congress and the FCC have developed new policy tools aimed at achieving those goals. Specific policies try to foster diversity of programming, ensure candidate access to the airwaves, provide diverse views on public issues, encourage news and public affairs programming, promote localism, develop quality programming for children, and sustain a separate realm of high-quality, noncommercial television programming.

It has been an ambitious enterprise, imperfectly realized. Part of the challenge has been to use public policy, with all its strengths and limitations, to integrate vital public goals into a commercial milieu. This challenge has been complicated in recent years by rapid and far-reaching changes in technology and market structures, not to mention evolving public needs. As competition in the telecommunications marketplace becomes more acute and as the competitive dynamics of TV broadcasting change, the capacities of the free marketplace to serve public ends are being tested as never before.

http://www.benton.org/publibrary/piac/sec2.html

As public trustees, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. Broadcasters are responsible for deciding what their stations present to the public. The FCC has stated publicly that "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest." The FCC does act to protect the public interest where it has received documented evidence of such rigging or slanting. This kind of evidence could include testimony, in writing or otherwise, from "insiders" or persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence about orders from station management to falsify the news.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/journalism.html

Otherwise the FCC does not intervene, if even then. But it seems to me that reports by the insider Fox News producer, Charlie Reina would qualify. There are those against such regulations, and those for it:

Abstract -
Communication Law and Policy (http://www.leaonline.com/loi/clp?cookieSet=1)
2001, Vol. 6, No. 3, Pages 485-539
(doi:10.1207/S15326926CLP0603_03)

The FCC's Broadcast News Distortion Rules: Regulation by Drooping Eyelid
Chad Raphael
Assistant Professor, Communication Department, Santa Clara University

In an era of sweeping deregulation of broadcast content, the Federal Communications Commission has retained its rules against licensees' deliberately distorting news. This article reviews the origins and codification of the distortion policy and presents the first quantitative analysis of the FCC's decisions in this area. The results indicate that the distortion policy is a largely symbolic regulation. The Commission's evidentiary requirements, burden of proof, changing definition of news and sometimes arbitrary reasoning erect formidable barriers to complainants. The study concludes with recommendations for rethinking the distortion rules in light of their First Amendment implications and the dramatic changes in broadcast news since the FCC set its distortion policy over 30 years ago.

http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15326926CLP0603_03?prevSearch=authorsfield:(Raphael,C)

I'm not sure how to achieve balance between the "watchdog" role of the media and serving the public interest, which also includes promoting democracy via an informed public.

 

[solutions in a box]

Outfoxed

I am curious, has anyone seen the video documentary "OUTFOXED"? I read an article on the documentary in a college newspaper.

The article indicated that what is, or is not broadcast on Fox, is determind by people other than the news directors.

 

[Townsend]

I am curious, has anyone seen the video documentary "OUTFOXED"? I read an article on the documentary in a college newspaper.

The article indicated that what is, or is not broadcast on Fox, is determind by people other than the news directors.

Are you saying Fox news is being forced to say things against it's will?

 

[Manchot]

Townsend, I will use basic logic and undisputed facts to show you how, legally, Fox's slogan cannot be "Fair and Balanced." (Although, most of it is a reiteration of my last post, which you completely ignored.)

Fact #1: "...Fox is one sided but no one is contesting that..."
Fact #2: Fox's slogan is "Fair and Balanced."
Fact #3: "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered." (I'm referencing the fact that such a memo exists, and not the commentary contained within the paragraph.)
Fact #4: "As you might expect, the term includes advertisements that are in fact untrue. However, the term false advertising extends well beyond untrue advertisements. It also includes advertisements that make representations that the advertiser has no reasonable basis to believe, even if the representations turn out to be true."
Fact #5: The FTC Act has been held up in court many times. However, it can only be enforced if the FTC itself chooses to proceed.

By definition, a network which is one-sided is not balanced. Therefore, when Fox advertises with that slogan, they are advertising something that is untrue, and could be held liable under the FTC act. Now, even though you may even agree that they are one-sided, it would be difficult to prove in court. Fortunately, the fact that the daily memo exists shows that the Fox execs have no reasonable basis to believe that their content is fair and/or balanced. It also leaves an undeniable paper trail. Therefore, under the FTC Act, they are breaking the law, no matter how hard you try to spin it. Now, if you're advocating the overturning of that act, then say so.

 

[Townsend]

Townsend, I will use basic logic and undisputed facts to show you how, legally, Fox's slogan cannot be "Fair and Balanced." (Although, most of it is a reiteration of my last post, which you completely ignored.)

You know what? You are right and I do think they should change their slogan to something that is much harder to argue like...

"The most fair and balanced news station in the world"

That way they are admitting they are not 100 percent unbiased and after all there is no such thing as a completely objective point of view. Which point of view is the right one to take is a matter of personal opinion. To what degree Fox news presents a one sided perspective is not something that you can quantify so you won't really be able to argue this point.

So while you might not like their current slogan do realize that it could be much worse and Fox news is going to give the impression they are fair and balanced whether you like it or not and there is nothing legally that anyone can do. Even if you spent 20 million in legal cost to get them to change their slogan they could just pick the one I said and then it would take an act of war to do anything about it...

 

[SOS2008]

You know what? You are right and I do think they should change their slogan to something that is much harder to argue like...

"The most fair and balanced news station in the world"

That way they are admitting they are not 100 percent unbiased and after all there is no such thing as a completely objective point of view. Which point of view is the right one to take is a matter of personal opinion.

U.S. District Judge Denny Chin dismissed the Fox claim that Al Franken's book infringed upon the company's trademark - "...It is ironic that a media company, which should be seeking to protect the First Amendment, is seeking to undermine it by claiming a monopoly on the phrase, 'Fair and Balanced.'" Chin said. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News

To what degree Fox news presents a one sided perspective is not something that you can quantify so you won't really be able to argue this point.

Bias is monitored and quantified by several groups, and here are some more stats in addition to those I've posted above (did you catch the stats above?):

Reports, polls and studies
A report released in August 2001 by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, titled "Fox: The Most Biased Name in News", which states that, despite his claims to the contrary, The O'Reilly Factor host Bill O'Reilly is conservative; and compared guests on Fox's Special Report with Brit Hume with those on
CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports:

......white....male...Republican...conservative
Hume (Fox)...93%...91%...89%.....71%
Blitzer (CNN)...93%...86%...57%......32%
----------
A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism in 2005 found that, in covering the Iraq War in 2004, 73% of Fox News stories included editorial opinions, compared to 29% on MSNBC and 2% on CNN. The same report found Fox less likely than CNN to present multiple points of view. On the other hand, it found Fox more transparent about its sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOX_News#Reports.2C_polls_and_studies

So while you might not like their current slogan do realize that it could be much worse and Fox news is going to give the impression they are fair and balanced whether you like it or not and there is nothing legally that anyone can do. Even if you spent 20 million in legal cost to get them to change their slogan they could just pick the one I said and then it would take an act of war to do anything about it...

It's not the conservative slant that bothers me so much. The media is supposed to play the role of "watch dog" and provide accurate information to the public. In view of FOX News' ties to Republicans and support of the Bush administration, it fails in the role of watch dog. That they broadcast misinformation is an even greater disservice to the American people. FOX News fails in it's role of promoting democracy. What could be worse?

 

[loseyourname]

It costs money to run a television station. As such, it is the goal of Fox News, and every other news station, to make money, not to be a watchdog for the people. If you want a watchdog, look to media outlets on the internet, and small presses, that don't require much money to run and so actually look to be watchdogs. Don't expect it from a television station; any television station.

 

[edward]

It costs money to run a television station. As such, it is the goal of Fox News, and every other news station, to make money, not to be a watchdog for the people. If you want a watchdog, look to media outlets on the internet, and small presses, that don't require much money to run and so actually look to be watchdogs. Don't expect it from a television station; any television station.

Some of the internet sources are great, but often do not have a source for their opinions. So they are just that, opinions.

 

[solutions in a box]

Are you saying Fox news is being forced to say things against it's will?

No, but fox news employees are told what the will and will not report. And they are told by management executives, not by the news directors.

Rupert Murdock is all about making money and at the same time twisting the news the way he wants it twisted.
He has found a proftable niche with the conservatives and he is not about to allow anything to be reported on his network that will interfere with that.

 

[Townsend]

Bias is monitored and quantified by several groups, and here are some more stats in addition to those I've posted above (did you catch the stats above?):

I don't understand how anyone can claim to quantify things like this. I think it's ridicules to try and measure...not only that but how can something that is biased itself take an honest measure of something elses biases?

It's not the conservative slant that bothers me so much.

Then what are you complaining about?

The media is supposed to play the role of "watch dog" and provide accurate information to the public.

Thats like saying someone is suppose to be altruistic...They are not suppose to be anything except what they want to be and they cannot be everything to everyone so they are what they are to those who want what they are selling.

In view of FOX News' ties to Republicans and support of the Bush administration, it fails in the role of watch dog. That they broadcast misinformation is an even greater disservice to the American people. FOX News fails in it's role of promoting democracy. What could be worse?

Democracy's only purpose is to ensure liberates are protected from the government. Beyond that I could careless about it so there are a lot of things that are much worse than that...

 

[Townsend]

No, but fox news employees are told what the will and will not report. And they are told by management executives, not by the news directors.

Employees having to do what they are told to do by the people who sign their paycheck bothers you now?

Rupert Murdock is all about making money and at the same time twisting the news the way he wants it twisted.

It is his prerogative and I believe he has every right to conduct his business the way his is conducting it.

He has found a proftable niche with the conservatives and he is not about to allow anything to be reported on his network that will interfere with that.

Can you blame someone for protecting their interest?