This story merely confirms what Fox news has been doing for years: lying to it’s viewers to pursue a political agenda. What do they do when their caught lying?
Fox News wins “right to lie.”
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Lawyers paid by Bill O'Reilly's bosses argued in court that Fox can lie with impunity.
It's their right under the 1st Amendment
FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves.
7 comments:
If you're going to accuse Fox of lying, you might provide some accurate evidence for your assertion.
Using the Daily Kos as a source might be expected of a high school or college student who doesn't know better; however, you should.
Here's an update showing that the FCC ruled that the Tampa Bay Fox affiliate in question - not the national Fox News program - did not distort the news in that case. http://tampa.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/wilson_akre_s_fcc_challenge_dismissed/Content?oid=278002
The last paragraph in that article is particularly telling about the journalistic integrity of the bunghole who had accused the Fox affiliate. You have at least one thing in common with him: no proof.
AS FOR YOUR 2007 UPDATE, DAVE GRAY:
(The following quotes are from the link you gave me)
The FCC concluded that the conflict was an "editorial dispute ... rather than a deliberate effort by [WTVT - a FOX NEWS affiliate] to distort news."
FOX NEWS AFFILIATE EQUALS FOX NEWS.
WE CAN AGREE ON THAT RIGHT?
THEY DIDN'T SAY THE STATION LIED DID THEY? THEY ALSO DIDN'T SAY WDTV/FOX TOLD THE TRUTH. WHY? BECAUSE OF PAST GUTLESS NO RULINGS...SOMETHING WTDV/FOX KNEW THEY COULD COUNT ON.
"The FCC's ruling follows a long history of the agency refusing to second-guess news decisions. To do otherwise would violate the First Amendment, the FCC ruling states.
IN OTHER WORDS DAVE, the FCC IS AFRAID TO TAKE A STAND. HARDLY A VICTORY FOR WDTV/FOX.
"Wilson, in an e-mail response to CL, complained that the FCC "has been busy giving the broadcast lobby virtually everything it has wanted, including unconscionable media consolidation that serves corporate profit at the expense of true public service."
WHAT ABOUT THIS UNHOLY ALLIANCE?
"Viewers are smart enough to see the agenda of broadcasters (like WTVT/Fox) and are turning away in droves."
HHmmmmmmm...NOT ALL VIEWERS APPARENTLY.
HOWEVER..."The FCC ruling "admonished" WTVT for misplacing a small number of e-mails related to the case."
THE BOTTOM LINE IS, FOX NEWS AND IT'S AFFILIATES, HAVE ALWAYS PURSUED A POLITICAL AGENDA,AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO UNTIL THE FCC GETS SOME BALLS AND ADMONISHES THEM TO QUIT LYING TO THE PUBLIC IN THEIR BROADCASTS - UNLESS THEY HAVE SOME SORT OF DISCLAIMER.
THAT "BUNGHOLE" YOU REFER TO DARED TO GO UP AGAINST MONSANTO AND WTVT's COLLUSION OF LIES. WHISTEBLOWERS ARE SELDOM POPULAR WITH CORPORATIONS WHO HAVE THEIR NASTY PRACTICES EXPOSED.
THIS IS JUST ONE INCIDENT WHERE FOX DISTORTED THE TRUTH. THERE'S COUNTLESS EXAMPLES EVERY DAY, BUT I DON'T HAVE THE ROOM TO LIST THEM HERE
NO PROOF? OH COME ON...WHERE"S YOURS REGARDING THIS INCIDENT?
THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT. I HOPE I'M NOT COMING ACROSS AS BEING DISRESPECTFUL TO YOU DAVE.
WE JUST THINK DIFFERENTLY ON THIS SUBJECT.
Dave Gray - I'm not sure why your post didn't come through on the blog (I got an email with your post), so I'm repeating it here for the readers benefit:
Re: DS comment on 1/27 at 8:48 -
I would suggest readers of this blog read the short article in the link I provided for a more even-keeled view of this specific case than your initial blog, your "source" - The Daily Kos, or your rebuttal to my comment provided.
Wilson and Akre were more likely engaging in distortion than affiliate executives when they refused as part of the story to allow Monsanto to respond to their allegations. They were at minimum guilty of shoddy journalism when they refused to allow a counterpoint to their investigation's findings.
Since that case, the article in the link states that Wilson (bunghole) caused his new station to get sued when he made allegations on air in a story, and later admitted he had no proof of those allegations.
I can't agree that a Fox affiliate equals Fox News. The Fox News Channel should certainly be labeled right leaning, just as MSNBC should be considered left leaning. The affiliates don't necessarily walk in lock-step to the conservative corporate news philosophy. Although I used to live in Eureka, I now live in Southern California. The local Fox affiliate, Channel 11, is middle of the road to slightly left in their news coverage.
Your request for proof from me is peculiar. YOU wrote the blog article insinuating Fox lies - an assertion you repeat in your rebuttal to my comment. You claim proof but don't have time to cite one instance. Most would find that strange. I'll come back from time to time to see if you have done so. At that point, I'll have the opportinity to refute your "proof" or agree that you are correct. Doesn't that sound fair?
I suspect the only thing we will ever have in common is a place in our hearts for the Dodgers. Anyway, I'll be back. If not in the highly unlikely case you find a Fox news story (not a commentary) "LYING TO THE PUBLIC IN THEIR BROADCASTS", then to comment on a different topic you blog on that irritates me. I suspect there'll be plenty.
In reply to your second comment:
Do we know each other Dave Gray? Have our paths crossed many moons ago?
How is it you know I'm a Dodger fan?
I have such a terrible memory that I'm never sure if I meant someone before or not. A side effect of my PTSD.
You're always welcome to refute anything you want on this blog. I appreciate your interest, but it surprises me.
I wonder why you "know" I'm going to post something that will irritate you?
And, is that the only time you respond to posts...when you're irritated?
How about when you like something?
My final question;
Why even bother reading my blog if you don't like it, or if there's going to be something you won't like about it in the future?
I admit, I'm puzzled.
Dave S. - Thank you for posting my comments in the absence of them not appearing when I posted to your blog.
No, you don't know me; our paths have never crossed. I found out you liked the Dodgers from your website under "interests." Anyone who lives in NOCAL and has has the nerve to say they are interested in the Dodgers must have them in their heart.
As to why I think you will be posting articles that irritate me - I read several of your blog posts. I read enough to realize that you are a liberal. Like most liberals, you choose emotionally charged topics and (in my humble opinion) don't comment/argue points rationally.
I enjoy a debate/challenge. Hence my offer to have you actually provide proof of Fox lying and my willingness to prove you wrong or tell you that you are right.
As to what if I like something in your blog - I commented favorably this evening on your take on the "Huckleberry Finn" editing controversy.
As to why I read your blog and will do so in the future - I was born in Eureka and I'm considering moving back there in the next few years. With this in mind, I started reading the T-S and found a few Humboldt blog links that led me to yours.
I enjoy commenting on local, state and national politics, and thought I'd get my feet wet with Humboldt folk. As a member of the 25th type of Libertarian (see your blog cartoon, "Tuesday Morning’s Political Primer: Today We Have Libertarians"), I usually find it quite easy and enjoyable to emasculate liberal voices wherever they appear.
I'm perplexed as to why you might be puzzled that I read your blog. If you don't want it read, why do you publish? If you do want it read, why would you think that only those that agree with you would read or comment? Perhaps the dearth of comments to your blog posts generally made you feel my posts were puzzling.
Anyway, Go Dodgers!
So you were born up here. Personally, I can't see living anywhere else. I've been up here since 1979 and still think it's paradise.
I can see why you want to come back. The job situation here, as usual,is not encouraging. My guess is that's why you left the area.
I hope you succeed in coming back up here.
Thanks for explaining your thoughts to me. I should also be more grateful that you find my blog worth reading.
I was puzzled why someone would go to a website if it made them mad...but your explanation makes sense.
I would note that I'm not a liberal, conservative, libetarian, independent, tea partier, or any other form of political affliation. (Please note header on top of page).
I know you think I am, based on a couple of posts, but if you look back at my archives over the last two-and-half years you'll see I critize people of any political party.
I would ask you not to stereotype me until you read my blog longer. I do look forward to your future comments and wish you well.
Go Dodgers!
BTY - I'm a Laker fan. How about you?
I suspected the job market was at least as bad there as it is here. I really enjoy Eureka and Humboldt County. Time will tell if I'll be able to pull off the move.
The first time I read your blog, I did notice that you indicated you had no political ideological persuasion. I only read a few articles, but it seemed that the heading and your columns were in conflict. My gut instinct was that like the significant majority of coastal Northern California, you were left-leaning politically - regardless of the heading indicating no afffiation. Perhaps I got stuck on the Fox blog. I'm not a big Fox fan, but I appreciate hearing the Republican and right-wing POV. Fox is pretty much the lone wolf in terms of that side of the political spectrum - certainly so in the visual media. Basically, anytime I read someone lambasting Fox, I tend to think the individual is far-left since that's the group that seems pissed off they even exist.
Anyway, your comment re stereotyping you is fair enough. I'll recalibrate my first impression and reserve judgmment.
I was a big Laker fan back in the West, Hazzard, Goodrich and Chamberlain era through the Magic years - not so much anymore. Still, if they make the payoffs, I'll root for them.
Post a Comment