1
   

Truth in journalism? Nah...

 
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 11:41 am
sozobe - What troubles me is that you started this discussion with the suggestion that this somehow speaks to the veracity of FoxNews coverage specifically, rather than simply indicating that we should all be skeptical news consumers regardless of the source.

Quote:
The judge is saying that if the FCC policy were a law, she would be able to make a whistleblower case.

She would have been able to sue under the whistle-blowere statute, yes, but that in no way means her claims were valid. (Your comments could be read to mean that the judge is saying she was wronged, but the law doesn't address her situation. The judge did not rule on whether or not she was wronged. He looked only at whether the law applied, and it does not.)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 11:45 am
Do we agree that Florida Circuit Court Judge Ralph Steinberg said that there is no law, rule, or regulation against distortion of news?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 11:47 am
Oh, you changed it... (was something about debate being useless since there are no facts to agree on...)

I am troubled that it's perfectly legal to distort news. Period.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 12:12 pm
sozobe wrote:
Oh, you changed it... (was something about debate being useless since there are no facts to agree on...)

I am troubled that it's perfectly legal to distort news. Period.

I changed it when I realized I had skimmed your comments and had come away with a less than accurate impression of what you had written. Shocked

Again, you did not lead in here by expressing concern about the validity of the news, you led in with a cheap shot at FoxNews. Everything else aside, this story gives no one any reason to consider FoxNews any more or less reliable than any other outlet.

Now, would you like to consider the feasibility of a law requiring "truth" in reporting? I suspect that if we were to explore that facet of this issue we might come to understand why there is no law mandating "truth" in news reporting.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 12:31 pm
trespassers will wrote:
I changed it when I realized I had skimmed your comments and had come away with a less than accurate impression of what you had written. Shocked


Thanks.

Quote:
Again, you did not lead in here by expressing concern about the validity of the news, you led in with a cheap shot at FoxNews. Everything else aside, this story gives no one any reason to consider FoxNews any more or less reliable than any other outlet.


I'm not sure about "lead". Lead one was the title, about truth in journalism in general. Next came the title of the article. Third came a comment about Fox News, which I most definitely don't trust. Fourth was about implications in general.

Phoenix brought up the thing about singling out Fox news early on, and I specified that I was not just referring to Fox, that I was concerned about the news reporting that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and not facing any legal sanction.

Now, again, I most definitely don't trust Fox News. We can start a new discussion on that. There are few sources I DO trust, with the New York Times probably being at the top of that list, though I do not accept everything they say without question, either.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 12:56 pm
It would help with my understanding of this whole thread if I can just get a little perspective by asking everyone:


Do you agree or disagree that Fox news has a bias to the right?
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 01:11 pm
This discussion has nothing to do with bias. As per its creator, this discussion is about concern over the reality that those who craft the media can distort it if they so choose.

And the case in question DID NOT involve Fox News.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 09:57 pm
O-kay...

Well, what do the rest of you think about Fox News? does it lean toward the right, or not?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 10:01 pm
...and for the record, I think this thread does have something to do with bias, because bias is one reason to lie and manipulate the news.

And a thousand pardons, but I also think the case cited certainly involved Rupert Murdoch's Fox News.

So there.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 10:09 pm
snood: faux news is hardly worth the effort for debate.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 10:13 pm
Smile

Basically, I agree but find that tack a little distracting. I don't trust Fox News, but that has more to do with shoddy journalistic standards than any bias, per se. There are news sources with a bias to the left that I don't trust, either. I think journalistic standards trump bias; I guess I'd say the New York Times would be the best example of journalistic standards that leans to the left, and the Wall Street Journal the best that leans to the right.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 10:28 pm
dyslexia wrote:
snood: faux news is hardly worth the effort for debate.


A valid point. FOX is "Infotainment". The most disturbing aspect of tabloid journalism is its broad market.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 10:30 pm
Yup.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 10:34 pm
the real problem, as i see it, is that the others (main stream cable news media are not meaningfully better.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2003 12:03 am
snood wrote:
...and for the record, I think this thread does have something to do with bias, because bias is one reason to lie and manipulate the news.

And a thousand pardons, but I also think the case cited certainly involved Rupert Murdoch's Fox News.

So there.

Snood - I respectfully suggest that you check your facts. The case involved a small Florida Fox network affiliate. To claim that this story has to do with Fox News is like saying that there is no difference between my local NBC network affiliate and MSNBC.

So no, this story did not have anything at all to do with the Fox News cable news network. (Trying to be very specific to avoid any further misconceptions.) Sorry if I or others were unclear about the details.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2003 01:07 am
As a FOX affiliate, the station likely had recourse to, if in fact was not by terms of franchise contract agreement obligated to use, FOX's corporate legal department if involved in litigation. The station was not Rupert Murdoch's Fox Network; it pays fees to FOX and in return is granted certain benefits and incurs certain obligations. They are not the network, but they may use the same lawyers.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2003 01:26 am
timberlandko wrote:
As a FOX affiliate, the station likely had recourse to, if in fact was not by terms of franchise contract agreement obligated to use, FOX's corporate legal department if involved in litigation. The station was not Rupert Murdoch's Fox Network; it pays fees to FOX and in return is granted certain benefits and incurs certain obligations. They are not the network, but they may use the same lawyers.

But more to the point, they are not FOX NEWS, which is a separate, 24/7 cable news station. I do not deny they are realted, but I trust you would not hold me liable for my cousin's behavior.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2003 05:16 am
No, but if you were paying for your cousin's lawyer, your cousin might be accountable to you.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/21/2021 at 07:58:20