Fox News is Fair and Balanced

[gyre]

Sorry.
Fox doesn't add "balance", accuracy or journalism.

Facts are true or not.
Opinion is opinion, sometimes okay in a report, if clearly opinion and relevant.
Sometimes not.

I called up nightline a bit back to complain and they are really a pain to get on the phone.
Got through somehow and chided them for stating an opinion as a fact.

The worst thing you can say to a journalist is that a report was bad journalism.

In this case, the statement would have been fine as an opinion, but it was presented as fact.
Totally unacceptable.

Journalism, when practiced, is a science, a method of finding the truth.
Not an excuse to deceive.

[Bluemandrew]

Actually I'd like you to provide me with an incorrect "fact" provided by Fox News (really, I do want to find a good example).

Does this count?


[youtube][/youtube]

They of course admitted the error when someone called them on it but if it was a "mistake" then damn they are sloppy.

[Bob]

Facts are true or not.

"Burning Man is a Leave No Trace Event".

Truthy, or not?

[Elderberry]

Yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but everyone is NOT entitled to their own facts. What pisses me off is that some people can't seem to tell the difference between facts and opinions.

Actually I'd like you to provide me with an incorrect "fact" provided by Fox News (really, I do want to find a good example). Facts can be misrepresented and still be "facts." Many people don't like the emphasis/deemphasis Fox News provides on some of its stories, but incorrect facts, when discovered, are retracted from what I've read.

Just one? You set the bar way too low.
[youtube][/youtube]

[Elderberry]

Facts are true or not.

No, not exactly. A "fact" is something that is indisputably true without exception. Otherwise It is an opinion and maybe even a lie especially if said with the express intent to deceive.

[wh..sh]

Facts are true or not.
Opinion is opinion, sometimes okay in a report, if clearly opinion and relevant.
Sometimes not.

I called up nightline a bit back to complain and they are really a pain to get on the phone.
Got through somehow and chided them for stating an opinion as a fact.

The worst thing you can say to a journalist is that a report was bad journalism.

In this case, the statement would have been fine as an opinion, but it was presented as fact.
Totally unacceptable.

Journalism, when practiced, is a science, a method of finding the truth.
Not an excuse to deceive.

Well, I was once in a debate about responsible journalism. Should journalism be objective or subjective? As much as objective journalism would be ideal, the era of objective journalism is long gone or to be fair, never really existed.

And boy, aren't facts hard to define? Let's say two people walking down the street from opposite direction witness a collision. Based on the limited perspective available to each person, "fact" will vary. There will probably be two (or more), parallel, probably contradicting facts living and breathing. Even the widely known scientific facts are often thrown under microscope and proven wrong.

And opinions are often expressed as opinion but inferred as fact. We have all come to rely on 2 minute sound bites and partially guilty of not confirming sources. OWS represents the opinion of a group of people, but often represented as how "Americans feel". Not that there is anything with that... that's how it works. I am just using OWS as an example for an widespread opinion, so don't panic.

Wonder how many here are in support of wikileaks which sort of took the route of objective journalism even if that means divulging the "forbidden fact" (**opens pandora's box**)

[Bluemandrew]

Wonder how many here are in support of wikileaks which sort of took the route of objective journalism even if that means divulging the "forbidden fact" (**opens pandora's box**)

::Raises hand::

[Elderberry]

Yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but everyone is NOT entitled to their own facts. What pisses me off is that some people can't seem to tell the difference between facts and opinions.

Actually I'd like you to provide me with an incorrect "fact" provided by Fox News (really, I do want to find a good example). Facts can be misrepresented and still be "facts." Many people don't like the emphasis/deemphasis Fox News provides on some of its stories, but incorrect facts, when discovered, are retracted from what I've read.

One more, from just my today's reading.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201112120017

[JStep]

The debate here is false equivalence.

The view that there is no qualitative difference between what's presented by Fox vs MSNBC is to take the view that there is absolutely no objective standard to reality. It's all just data points that may or may not be some degree of true and presented (or misrepresented) to bolster ones own (equivalent) agenda. Oddly, it seems to be those on the right side of politics who espouse this view, the same folks who tend to bemoan the left's "moral relativism".

I hold that there is a world of difference between a typical broadcast by Rachel Maddow vs one by Glen Beck. (I know Beck was fired and no longer on Fox, that's part of my point here... he was fired only because he took the Fox model to such an extreme that even Fox viewers found it hard to take him seriously anymore and his ratings dropped. They didn't fire him for all the lies he told on his show on a daily basis, they fired him because he wasn't making them money anymore as advertisers were dropping him like a hot turd.)

Regularly espoused by Fox news: Global climate change is not accepted by the science community as being a factual phenomenon. By espoused I mean the side that says global climate change is in doubt, that the scientific community is in doubt about the reliability of the data, is presented as being at least equal to (equivalent to) the side that says the global scientific community acknowledges the reality of man made climate change because all credible peer reviewed data overwhelmingly indicates this. In fact, Fox regularly promotes climate change deniers as being more than equal to the other "side" of this debate. Presenting the false equivalence is bad enough to qualify as irresponsible, but Fox actively obfuscates the issue to the populace.

Rachel Maddow definitely presents the information covered on her show in way that is designed to bolster an agenda. The difference is that Maddow doesn't blatantly lie or misrepresent facts as being the opposite of reality to fool her audience. If she presents something incorrectly, she issues a correction or clarification. She is, like all editorial journalists, presenting what can be called propaganda. Propaganda in it's benign sense; information presented in such a way as to prove a point or convince the reader/viewer of the validity of an opinion.

There is a world of difference between these two networks and the objective nature of what they present. The only way to maintain that they are simply two sides of a coin is to completely abandon any sense that we live in a world of objective facts and reality and assume that it's all just a relative soup of conflicting opinions. This is to dumb yourself down in a bend-over-backwards effort to either defend Fox or deride MSNBC. It's disingenuous if you know better, ignorant of you don't.

IMNSHO anyway lol.

[theCryptofishist]

Wonder how many here are in support of wikileaks which sort of took the route of objective journalism even if that means divulging the "forbidden fact" (**opens pandora's box**)

::Raises hand::

The attempted (and perhaps actual) suppression of this source is scary. However, I do think there is some stuff that the government legitimately should not have to reveal. Unfortunately, the decision is made by the people whose asses need protecting.

[Elderberry]

Brilliantly stated.

The debate here is false equivalence.

The view that there is no qualitative difference between what's presented by Fox vs MSNBC is to take the view that there is absolutely no objective standard to reality. It's all just data points that may or may not be some degree of true and presented (or misrepresented) to bolster ones own (equivalent) agenda. Oddly, it seems to be those on the right side of politics who espouse this view, the same folks who tend to bemoan the left's "moral relativism".

I hold that there is a world of difference between a typical broadcast by Rachel Maddow vs one by Glen Beck. (I know Beck was fired and no longer on Fox, that's part of my point here... he was fired only because he took the Fox model to such an extreme that even Fox viewers found it hard to take him seriously anymore and his ratings dropped. They didn't fire him for all the lies he told on his show on a daily basis, they fired him because he wasn't making them money anymore as advertisers were dropping him like a hot turd.)

Regularly espoused by Fox news: Global climate change is not accepted by the science community as being a factual phenomenon. By espoused I mean the side that says global climate change is in doubt, that the scientific community is in doubt about the reliability of the data, is presented as being at least equal to (equivalent to) the side that says the global scientific community acknowledges the reality of man made climate change because all credible peer reviewed data overwhelmingly indicates this. In fact, Fox regularly promotes climate change deniers as being more than equal to the other "side" of this debate. Presenting the false equivalence is bad enough to qualify as irresponsible, but Fox actively obfuscates the issue to the populace.

Rachel Maddow definitely presents the information covered on her show in way that is designed to bolster an agenda. The difference is that Maddow doesn't blatantly lie or misrepresent facts as being the opposite of reality to fool her audience. If she presents something incorrectly, she issues a correction or clarification. She is, like all editorial journalists, presenting what can be called propaganda. Propaganda in it's benign sense; information presented in such a way as to prove a point or convince the reader/viewer of the validity of an opinion.

There is a world of difference between these two networks and the objective nature of what they present. The only way to maintain that they are simply two sides of a coin is to completely abandon any sense that we live in a world of objective facts and reality and assume that it's all just a relative soup of conflicting opinions. This is to dumb yourself down in a bend-over-backwards effort to either defend Fox or deride MSNBC. It's disingenuous if you know better, ignorant of you don't.

IMNSHO anyway lol.

[Elderberry]

Wonder how many here are in support of wikileaks which sort of took the route of objective journalism even if that means divulging the "forbidden fact" (**opens pandora's box**)

::Raises hand::

The attempted (and perhaps actual) suppression of this source is scary. However, I do think there is some stuff that the government legitimately should not have to reveal. Unfortunately, the decision is made by the people whose asses need protecting.

The problem lies in determining which "some stuff" poses a legitimate security threat. My feeling is that if a journalist can uncover it, it shouldn't be classified to begin with. The government classifies way too much information, much for other than security reasons.

[gyre]

Facts are true or not.

No, not exactly. A "fact" is something that is indisputably true without exception. Otherwise It is an opinion and maybe even a lie especially if said with the express intent to deceive.

It has been suggested by some that facts have an opposing viewpoint.

Yes, facts are true or not facts.

Facts seen from different viewpoints may be reported that way, but how well reality is sought will determine how the report is viewed.

On wikipedia I was looking at a discussion about two sentences together and one was being removed from the paragraph. but being retained elsewhere.
Both were true.
It was felt that being paired together was misleading.

That is what accuracy as a goal looks like.


It has been suggested that there are three ways to answer a journalist's question.

1. I know and I can tell you.

2. I know and I can't tell you.

3. I don't know.

[Bob]

4. I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

[lemur]

depends upon what the meaning of is, is.

[theCryptofishist]

Wonder how many here are in support of wikileaks which sort of took the route of objective journalism even if that means divulging the "forbidden fact" (**opens pandora's box**)

::Raises hand::

The attempted (and perhaps actual) suppression of this source is scary. However, I do think there is some stuff that the government legitimately should not have to reveal. Unfortunately, the decision is made by the people whose asses need protecting.

The problem lies in determining which "some stuff" poses a legitimate security threat. My feeling is that if a journalist can uncover it, it shouldn't be classified to begin with. The government classifies way too much information, much for other than security reasons.

Indeed. The temptation to shove your particular embarrassing moments under the carpet by saying "national security" must be great. And yet there are cases. For instance, and this is not "national security" but in my agency there is a room where "Confidential Business Information" is kept. I think two people have the key, and I've never seen anyone in that room. (I don't work on that floor anymore, so I don't know what that is worth.) Okay, maybe once, because I think I saw into the room once, so the door must have been open once. (Just a bunch of filing cabinets, btw.)
I don't know how we get an objective read on what should and should not be released; does FOIA need updated guidance? Can we have some sort of citizen review board--but they can keep the necessary secrets themselves?
Complicated.

[5280MeV]

depends upon what the meaning of is, is.

Genius, pure and simple:

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.

Likewise, I am not drinking, having finished my beer, and currently typing before I go to the fridge to get another.

If I asked you to watch Fox News with me, would the answer to that question be the same as the answer to this question?

[Elderberry]

I is confused.

[JStep]

TLDR

Brilliantly stated.

The debate here is false equivalence.

The view that there is no qualitative difference between what's presented by Fox vs MSNBC is to take the view that there is absolutely no objective standard to reality. It's all just data points that may or may not be some degree of true and presented (or misrepresented) to bolster ones own (equivalent) agenda. Oddly, it seems to be those on the right side of politics who espouse this view, the same folks who tend to bemoan the left's "moral relativism".

I hold that there is a world of difference between a typical broadcast by Rachel Maddow vs one by Glen Beck. (I know Beck was fired and no longer on Fox, that's part of my point here... he was fired only because he took the Fox model to such an extreme that even Fox viewers found it hard to take him seriously anymore and his ratings dropped. They didn't fire him for all the lies he told on his show on a daily basis, they fired him because he wasn't making them money anymore as advertisers were dropping him like a hot turd.)

Regularly espoused by Fox news: Global climate change is not accepted by the science community as being a factual phenomenon. By espoused I mean the side that says global climate change is in doubt, that the scientific community is in doubt about the reliability of the data, is presented as being at least equal to (equivalent to) the side that says the global scientific community acknowledges the reality of man made climate change because all credible peer reviewed data overwhelmingly indicates this. In fact, Fox regularly promotes climate change deniers as being more than equal to the other "side" of this debate. Presenting the false equivalence is bad enough to qualify as irresponsible, but Fox actively obfuscates the issue to the populace.

Rachel Maddow definitely presents the information covered on her show in way that is designed to bolster an agenda. The difference is that Maddow doesn't blatantly lie or misrepresent facts as being the opposite of reality to fool her audience. If she presents something incorrectly, she issues a correction or clarification. She is, like all editorial journalists, presenting what can be called propaganda. Propaganda in it's benign sense; information presented in such a way as to prove a point or convince the reader/viewer of the validity of an opinion.

There is a world of difference between these two networks and the objective nature of what they present. The only way to maintain that they are simply two sides of a coin is to completely abandon any sense that we live in a world of objective facts and reality and assume that it's all just a relative soup of conflicting opinions. This is to dumb yourself down in a bend-over-backwards effort to either defend Fox or deride MSNBC. It's disingenuous if you know better, ignorant of you don't.

IMNSHO anyway lol.

[Elderberry]

I don't think you have to read it if you wrote it, but your modesty is becoming.

[JStep]

I don't think you have to read it if you wrote it, but your modesty is becoming.