[olePigeon]

http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_b...rm_public.html

Not at all surprising coming out of the Florida Appellate Court, probably the most corrupt legal body in the country.

So, basically FOX News (and now any news organization, for that matter) is allowed to make sh*t up. I also find it not surprising that this spurred from a conservative news organization regarding scientific facts being at odds with their advertisers.

[OldManMac]

Not surprising. If a left-leaning news organization did that, Faux News would be all over it, screaming about how the left lies.

[Shaddim]

Looks like good news for NPR as well!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Looks like good news for NPR as well!

Yes, as NPR always makes stuff like, like putting a (D) after Gov. Sanford's name (several times), during a news report, like Fox did.

[stupendousman]

Sorry but CNN and CBS beat Fox to it.

I remember that CNN ended up killing a series about the Vietnam war (?) because it was clear that they were twisting the news in order to support their pre-determined slant, and Dan Rather and his cohorts got caught using what anyone in their right mind knew where phony documents to make stuff up in order to effect an national Presidential election.

I figure FOX probably has about 20 more major make-up "mulligans" before they catch up to the rest of the mainstream media, if this is the best you guys can do.

[OldManMac]

You figure wrong, but that's nothing new.

[kobi]

In light of the new ruling the GOP and Fox just announced that facts now have a liberal bias, so they aren't using them anymore.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You figure wrong, but that's nothing new.

Thanks for your contribution to this thread!

[ghporter]

I'm psychic. I see---another appeal. The appeals court's position that FCC "policy" is not "promulgated rules" flies in the face of the purpose of the policy-to require that something labeled as "news" at least not be fiction. Slant is one thing, but indicating that something is a fact when it is instead made up, is not something that should count as "news." I HOPE that this gets plenty of press through other channels, so that the public can start pressuring lawmakers (who like to get good press themselves) to pass laws or take other action so that the public can be assured that "news" is factual, no matter who presents it.

Oh, and Fox News isn't even very good for entertainment value.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I HOPE that this gets plenty of press through other channels, so that the public can start pressuring lawmakers (who like to get good press themselves) to pass laws or take other action so that the public can be assured that "news" is factual, no matter who presents it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sorry Glenn, any such law would be unconstitutional.

[shifuimam]

I'm always amused by anyone who thinks their news outlet of choice isn't biased, misleading, or at times outright lying to its viewers. No news is 100% reliable as a completely objective, unbiased, nothing-but-facts source of information. The people giving you the news have their own political opinions, and it's inevitable that those opinions will infiltrate the news stories they write and perform.

Yes, FOX News is right-leaning, just like CNN, the BBC, NPR, and every major network television station is left-leaning. I'm surprised that people get up in arms so much about FOX News - the left controls 90% of mainstream media; would it kill you to let the right have one little corner of it?

And, WRT the original article - it is unconstitutional to ban a news organization from saying whatever the hell they want. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. It's not a suggestion, nor is it contingent on whether or not the left thinks that some entity should be "allowed" to exercise that right. A news organization is a private entity. They have the exact same rights as everyone else.

If FOX wants to put outright lies on the news portion of their channel, let them. It gives you yet another thing to attack about the conservative right, and if they keep it up, they'll eventually lose credibility, viewership, advertising, and go belly-up. And isn't that what you really want when all is said and done?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

the left controls 90% of mainstream media; would it kill you to let the right have one little corner of it?

But this is how the left always operates.

Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_b...rm_public.html

Not at all surprising coming out of the Florida Appellate Court, probably the most corrupt legal body in the country.

So, basically FOX News (and now any news organization, for that matter) is allowed to make sh*t up. I also find it not surprising that this spurred from a conservative news organization regarding scientific facts being at odds with their advertisers.

Couple of things, do you have an actual source for the story and not some hack job from a liberal blog? For one thing, this story is like 6 years old.

Secondly, the verbiage of the jury finding on February 14th of 2000 was that Akre (the reporter) was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. That's pretty friggin' broad don't you think? "Slanted"? Hell, if being "slanted" were against the law, would any news outlet exist? Reminds me of the four, forged Killian documents critical of Bush's quality of service in the military that broke in 2004, just before a Presidential election. I mean, if using your media outreach to attempt to hijack a major US election isn't against the law, I don't see why a little "slant" should be.

The little 6 year old controversy you're resurrecting here does not tell us anything that the 4 forged CBS documents didn't already tell us years ago.

Next up... MAN LANDS ON MOON!

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Yes, FOX News is right-leaning, just like CNN, the BBC, NPR, and every major network television station is left-leaning. I'm surprised that people get up in arms so much about FOX News - the left controls 90% of mainstream media; would it kill you to let the right have one little corner of it?

I disagree. I believe right controls 90% of mainstream media.

FOX News is far-far right. Rest of right leaning.

Only on the internet are the left and progressives allow to talk and blog.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

FOX News is far-far right. Rest of right leaning.

..and it's the most popular cable news station. Seems that Americans must like "far-far-right" leaning news and be "far-far-right" leaning. Seems like the lefties must be really out of touch.

Only on the internet are the left and progressives allow to talk and blog.

Because of the apparent small audience. You don't have to make money on the internet like you do most other forms of media.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Sorry Glenn, any such law would be unconstitutional.

It's illegal to advertise a product fraudulently. Simply using the term "news" does not make the product "factually reported true information," no matter what Fox or "The Weekly World News" might want their viewers and readers to think. It is not unconstitutional to require that a product, whether it's a newspaper or a television program, be properly labeled as to its content, and holding so-called "news" organizations to the same fraud standard that drain cleaner manufacturers would IMPROVE freedom of speech while limiting the ability of politically slanted rich people to use their wealth to defraud populations.

Keith Rupert Murdoch has thrown his ideas about US politics around for a long time; his first US media purchase was MY local paper, the San Antonio Express News. His ideas about "what's true" in print have taken a LONG time to weed out of that paper, and though now owned by Hurst, they are working diligently to be and remain a viable newspaper today. That's taking some hard work at reporting facts and minimizing unlabeled spin editorialism. I do not want MY COUNTRY's politics meddled with by some Australian billionaire.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

All they would have to do is clearly indicate which portions of their programs are news and which are editorial. Then they can lie all they want in the editorials. At least lawyers have an organization / process for handling ethical violations.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

..and it's the most popular cable news station. Seems that Americans must like "far-far-right" leaning news and be "far-far-right" leaning. Seems like the lefties must be really out of touch.

Cause FOX news isn't news? It's an entertainment show like American Idol. You know, FOX makes up entertainment fake news stories.

I guess Rush Limbaugh must be news too and Obama is responsible for Sanford's affair.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Because of the apparent small audience. You don't have to make money on the internet like you do most other forms of media.

I know, you only visit conservapedia because wikipedia is too left-leaning.

But I just needed you to make my point for me. If shifuimam claims 90% of the media is left leaning, doesn't that make 90% of the population left-leaning liberals because that's where all the money is at?


So what's your argument now stupendousman? Mainstream media is mostly left-leaning because that's where all the money is at?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It is not unconstitutional to require that a product, whether it's a newspaper or a television program, be properly labeled as to its content, and holding so-called "news" organizations to the same fraud standard that drain cleaner manufacturers would IMPROVE freedom of speech while limiting the ability of politically slanted rich people to use their wealth to defraud populations.

Any law regarding this would be unconstitutional. Unfortunately, for right or wrong, your constitution says that you can't make a law about it. Period.

[Chuckit]

As far as I can tell, Fox News (as in, the actual news channel) isn't involved in this at all. It's the news department of a local Fox Broadcasting Company affiliate.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Couple of things, do you have an actual source for the story and not some hack job from a liberal blog?

Actually, yeah - I'm not finding anything about this incident except the article on ceasespin's website - there should be the actual lawsuit documentation somewhere. Can someone link to the original information about this incident?

Edit to add:

I did find some information on Wikipedia about the incident, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

FOX News was in no way affiliated with this lawsuit. The argument was made by a single FOX-owned network television channel. It was not made by FOX News, Rupert Murdoch, or the FOX corporation. The argument was specifically in defense of the firing of the news anchor, who was claiming protection under a Florida's whistle-blower protection act which, according to Florida's own state legislature website, says the following:

An agency or independent contractor shall not dismiss, discipline, or take any other adverse personnel action against an employee for disclosing information pursuant to the provisions of this section.

You can read the entire content of the statute here. It's worth noting that "agency" in the above quote is limited to the context of a public, government-run organization - which does not include any privately-owned news station, television broadcast company, or local television network affiliate. Ms. Akre's lawsuit attempted to use an essentially irrelevant law and a policy (not a law) to force her former employer to rehire her (and face punishment for firing her).

The FCC has a policy against news distortion, and can choose to not renew a station's FCC license if that station is guilty of gross distortion or outright lying. However, the FCC has this to say on the matter, from a document that can be found on the FCC site here:

The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material. Additionally, the Communications Act and the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibit any action by the FCC that would interfere with free speech in broadcasting. For example, the FCC cannot interfere with a broadcaster’s selection and presentation of material for the news and/or its commentary.

The FCC does, however, regulate content in some narrow areas. For example, federal law prohibits or limits the broadcast of obscene, indecent, or profane language. But the FCC must be guided by decisions of the courts in determining whether specific material may be prohibited under this law. Similarly, the FCC may penalize licensees for knowingly broadcasting false information.

...

The FCC does act to protect the public interest where it has received documented evidence of such rigging or slanting. ... Of particular concern would be evidence about orders from station management to falsify the news. In the absence of such documented evidence, the FCC has stressed that it cannot intervene.

It is not a good idea for a news station to spread outright lies as truth - FOX news doesn't do this. If they did, the FCC would be more than happy to revoke their broadcasting license, like they've done with news stations in the past. They may inject a right-leaning viewpoint into a story, but what you see is what it is - if you compare FOX news coverage to other stations (MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, network news stations including ABC, CBS, and NBC), the stories they cover are what's actually happening; they just tend to place emphasis on things that would cater to the politically conservative population - just like how left-leaning news sources will focus on that which generally incites the politically liberal portion of the population.

Could we at least get our facts straight, or are we just looking for an excuse to attack the only right-leaning news station on United States TV?

[Chuckit]

If a news outlet leans, it should be knocked over.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So, basically FOX News (and now any news organization, for that matter) is allowed to make sh*t up. I also find it not surprising that this spurred from a conservative news organization regarding scientific facts being at odds with their advertisers.

Yep, according to that Leftist blog site in the OP, that's right!

What's next, NPR admitting that it's shilling for the socialistas? The marvels never cease.

Seems to me the whole thing was about whistleblowing, which is something altogether different. And it wasn't about Fox News at all, but about some dinky station in Florida.

Paranoia from Your Mom's Basement again.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Any law regarding this would be unconstitutional. Unfortunately, for right or wrong, your constitution says that you can't make a law about it. Period.

The Supreme Court determines whether or not something is unconstitutional, and uses its discretion in applying the standards set forth in the Constitution to situations that were not or could not be foreseen by the Founding Fathers. There are many laws on the books that put limits on what COMMERCIAL speech is allowed, especially with regards to fraud. Broadcasting "news" is usually a commercial enterprise, done with commercial sponsorship for the mercenary purpose of making money for the broadcaster. Therefore insisting that THIS particular form of commercial speech meet the same standards as snake oil sellers does not seem at all to add a burden to anyone except fraudsters.

Further, as Chuckit points out, this is not about Fox itself, but an affiliate. I take back some of the fervor I put into reviling Rupert Murdoch earlier-it isn't just his fault. Affiliates are separate commercial entities, and with Fox commercial applies both in the broad sense of "commerce" and the specific sense that their affiliates are commercial (not non-profit) stations.

[Big Mac]

I was surprised by the seemingly uncharacteristic amount of lefty, Keith Olberman style vitriol toward FNC from you, Glenn. I didn't expect you to among those who think the vast majority of what is reported on Fox News is false.

The press - commercial or otherwise - is still the press and enjoys very broad protections under the Constitution. There aren't two different standards.

[JellyBeen]

Rupert Murdoch is a globalist. Furthering the agenda of the military industrial complex is his prime directive. FOX is just a tool like many others.

[Big Mac]

I'm glad you know him so well, JellyBeen. Are you working on his biography?

[JellyBeen]

Just do a little reading Big Mac, its amazing what you can find out. Why are you feeling so persecuted?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I was surprised by the seemingly uncharacteristic amount of lefty, Keith Olberman style vitriol toward FNC from you, Glenn. I didn't expect you to among those who think the vast majority of what is reported on Fox News is false.

The press - commercial or otherwise - is still the press and enjoys very broad protections under the Constitution. There aren't two different standards.

While most "news outlets" have obvious and well understood biases and spins, the way Fox News handles things is significantly less wholesome. Their apparent editorial policy is to blur the line between "editorializing" and "reporting" such that they intentionally make it hard to see the difference. Their political bent is one thing, but obfuscating what is opinion and what is fact in their presentations is not acceptable.

I do NOT think that "the vast majority of what is reported on Fox News is false." Would that that were the case. Instead, they make it very difficult to judge what is and isn't true, and what is and isn't opinion, and they do it intentionally. It's not journalism, and it isn't even "infotainment." It's intentional distortion. And that's just simply not good for anyone except whomever is doing this intentional manipulation.

[Big Mac]

I hear claims like that, but I'm wondering if you can provide some hard examples. The morning programming ("Fox and Friends," "Live Desk"), "Special Report" (except for the panel segments at the end) and "The Fox Report" are their headline reporting shows. "Your World," "Glenn Beck," "The Factor," "Hannity" and "Gretta Live" are commentator-based editorial shows. The line is clear, and I don't really see any problem with it or the difference between that and what CNN or MSNBC does. If you just want straight headlines, Headline News has that market pretty well cornered.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I hear claims like that, but I'm wondering if you can provide some hard examples. The morning programming ("Fox and Friends," "Live Desk"), "Special Report" (except for the panel segments at the end) and "The Fox Report" are their headline reporting shows. "Your World," "Glenn Beck," "The Factor," "Hannity" and "Gretta Live" are commentator-based editorial shows. The line is clear, and I don't really see any problem with it or the difference between that and what CNN or MSNBC does. If you just want straight headlines, Headline News has that market pretty well cornered.

I doubt that people can really come up with many direct examples of FOX lying in their news broadcasts. It's just become accepted as fact by the liberal left that FOX is somehow dishonest and evil because they don't follow the same leftist spin found on other cable news channels.

[Big Mac]

I expect Glenn will come up with something substantive, don't you?

[JellyBeen]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I expect Glenn will come up with something substantive, don't you?

I think you need to take a walk...go and get some air outside.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by JellyBeen 

I think you need to take a walk...go and get some air outside.

Because some of us would like some solid, hard evidence of FOX News directly lying and calling it truth...?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I hear claims like that, but I'm wondering if you can provide some hard examples. The morning programming ("Fox and Friends," "Live Desk"), "Special Report" (except for the panel segments at the end) and "The Fox Report" are their headline reporting shows. "Your World," "Glenn Beck," "The Factor," "Hannity" and "Gretta Live" are commentator-based editorial shows. The line is clear, and I don't really see any problem with it or the difference between that and what CNN or MSNBC does. If you just want straight headlines, Headline News has that market pretty well cornered.

While it may be clear to many of us, the way all these shows present "hard news" during the show is disingenuous. Even the intro part, say when Glenn Beck introduces something he's going to talk about, isn't done straight most of the time. It's done with a very strong spin, but instead of saying "this is my take on this news story" it actually comes across as "these are the incontrovertible facts."

Maybe I'm giving far too much credit to Fox News, or far too little credit to the American public...but there are still people who think that Weekly World News was actually a newspaper...and that's enough to make me think that there should be a bright, explicit, flashing neon pink and green line between hard news and editorializing, and that each side of that line should be plainly and prominently marked so that someone you and I might consider "intellectually impaired" would be able to tell at a glance what's presented as fact.

A news source should not be expected to be 100% free of spin. It's one of the things that makes each source unique. But it should be obvious when the spin has actually become a centrifuge, and I don't think Fox wants to make that difference obvious.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I doubt that people can really come up with many direct examples of FOX lying in their news broadcasts. It's just become accepted as fact by the liberal left that FOX is somehow dishonest and evil because they don't follow the same leftist spin found on other cable news channels.

I don't think that Fox lies. I think they present what they present in such a way as to force a conclusion that meets their editorial/political objective. While every news source HAS such objectives, most, even the "leftiest of lefties", at least tries to present the facts more even-handedly than Fox seems to. For example, I've heard lots and lots of news on NPR that was extremely balanced, even though it was obvious that the reporter had a particular political point of view.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

While it may be clear to many of us, the way all these shows present "hard news" during the show is disingenuous. Even the intro part, say when Glenn Beck introduces something he's going to talk about, isn't done straight most of the time. It's done with a very strong spin, but instead of saying "this is my take on this news story" it actually comes across as "these are the incontrovertible facts."

Glenn Beck is a commentator, Glenn, not a journalist. He's very open with his views. Do you think Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow are any less biased? As I said, some of the shows feature journalism, others commentary. As intelligent as you are, I know you're cognizant of the difference. I think you're holding FNC up to a different standard than you hold the other 24-hour news networks.

(Please delete the two superfluous posts below if possible.)

[Big Mac]

....

[Big Mac]

....

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

He's a commentator, Glenn, not a journalist. He's very open with his views. Do you think Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow is any less biased?

No, they suck just as much. I find those two to be irritating as hell, but that doesn't take away from the suckiness of Fox News, which they're emulating.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I don't think that Fox lies. I think they present what they present in such a way as to force a conclusion that meets their editorial/political objective. While every news source HAS such objectives, most, even the "leftiest of lefties", at least tries to present the facts more even-handedly than Fox seems to. For example, I've heard lots and lots of news on NPR that was extremely balanced, even though it was obvious that the reporter had a particular political point of view.

Unfortunately, the complaint is hollow without a more solid example. This sounds an awful lot like what the "leftiest of lefties" have to say about Fox News, but they too have little by way of any substantive evidence of the claim. In fact, this very thread is probably the best example of it. Someone hears something with FOX in it second-hand and all of a sudden they rattle off an indictment against Fox News that has nothing to do with Fox News at all. Regarding your use of NPR as an example, I'm not sure the statements "extremely balanced" and "it was obvious the reporter had a particular point of view" can logically be in the same sentence. I might add there's something a little more reprehensible about a public outlet paid for by the public being used as a voicebox for an "obvious point of view".

Even their editorial programs with panels provide opposing perspectives. It seems this is a little more subjective than many seem willing to admit here. The real problem seems to be a television news outlet that actually dares to feature conservative hosts. While there is no more a blurring of hard news from editorials @ Fox News than any other popular news outlet, somehow it is simply more fashionable to hate Fox News. I'm guessing its popularity has more to do with it than anything else.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

No, they suck just as much. I find those two to be irritating as hell, but that doesn't take away from the suckiness of Fox News, which they're emulating.

Well, then political commentary isn't your thing. (Olberman and Maddow stink out loud, aside from any political considerations. Forced viewing of those shows is probably only a bit softer than waterboarding)

There probably are too many commentary shows, but those are the shows that get ratings. It seems that ebuddy's right, though, it's fashionable to hate Fox News. No one has a problem with ABC News, which operates under the guise of straight reporting, shilling for Obama-Care with a full day's infomercial and the barring of advertisers on the other side. FNC runs ads from left-wing groups even though the channel leans right.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Cause FOX news isn't news? It's an entertainment show like American Idol. You know, FOX makes up entertainment fake news stories.

what do you think CNN, NBC, ABC, et al are?

They're companies dufas. Their primary reason for existence is to make money. The "news" is just how they do this. If you don't believe me...go look up the word "company" in the dictionary.

I guess Rush Limbaugh must be news too and Obama is responsible for Sanford's affair.

It is. Just like the rest of the companies.

I know, you only visit conservapedia because wikipedia is too left-leaning.

Is this supposed to be some sort of intelligent discourse?

But I just needed you to make my point for me. If shifuimam claims 90% of the media is left leaning, doesn't that make 90% of the population left-leaning liberals because that's where all the money is at?

No, it means 90% of the money to be made is in left leaning news.

So what's your argument now stupendousman? Mainstream media is mostly left-leaning because that's where all the money is at?

in the long run....Exactly.

[Big Mac]

90% of the money to be made isn't in left-leaning news. Rather, traditional media is center-left oriented. That's the normal bias in media and academia.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

90% of the money to be made isn't in left-leaning news. Rather, traditional media is center-left oriented. That's the normal bias in media and academia.

And conservatives talk radio dominate the talk radio market cause liberals don't really listen to talk radio?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

And conservatives talk radio dominate the talk radio market cause liberals don't really listen to talk radio?

Something like that.


Believe you me, if any of the left leaning news outlets thought they could make more money being right winged - you can bet your ass they would be.

Same thing with talk radio. If there was more money in liberal talk shows, you can bet your entire stimulus package they'd be doing that. they're companies

[Chuckit]

There's a ton of money to be made in the sex industry, and yet companies still start other businesses. Even if they are trying to make money, they don't necessarily go toward the most obvious source of income regardless of their own inclinations.

[Laminar]

Is the "FOX" in "FOX News" an acronym?

[Chuckit]

No, it's just VERY IMPORTANT.

[andi*pandi]

Anything shouted loud enough becomes truth. Anything repeated often enough becomes truth. Therefore, anything on tv is truth.

People who haven't gone to journalism school may find it hard to differentiate between editorial, puff, and factual journalism. When Bill O'Reilly* exaggerates, stopping just at the point of libel, those same people may believe. Television has authority. It is very loud. Sound bites get repeated.

*(Or whoever, insert whichever talking head you like/hate.)