jetriot said:
I like how fairness doctrines in Canada and the UK are used as examples not to watch Fox News. Whatever your opinions on Fox News any situation where a government can tell you what you can and can not watch or present to people is a poor one.
We have the right of free speech up here. What we don't have is the right to slander or libel, obviously. On top of this, there is a requirement for journalistic integrity in newspapers and news programs, something Fox fails at. See, you can't call yourself 'News' and say whatever you want to say--you actually have to have journalistic substance.
I do watch Fox News by the way and I honestly think their news coverage, and REAL stories(not sensationalist drivel that Fox seems to have the most of) is the most fair of the three news networks. Fox News seems to me to be the most interested in actually questioning our government. Every controversy against Obama was led from Fox News(ACORN, Fast and the Furious, Solyndra, etc.) During Bush's last few years they also broke the Border Patrol story, immigration reform, and Blackwater scandals that destroyed Bush's ratings with right.
I'm not going to defend MSNBC or CNN, however, I will say this: American journalistic standards are piss-poor at best. Saying it's the best of the three is like looking at three piles of crap on garbage can lids and saying that one is the closest to a delicious steak--and then eating it.
There's better, more reliable sources of news out there. Find them. Use them. Demand them. Don't settle for THIS mediocrity.
MSNBC and CNN seem to constantly ignore stories like these until they are too big to remain quiet on. People here can say Fox lies, blah blah blah but without referencing outlier examples(which every news organization holds for one reason or another) this is simply not true. I do agree that they fill a lot more time with sensationalist drivel that appeals to old, out of touch, conservatives. I can put up with that for the benefits though.
On the other hand, Fox News belongs to a corporation that's wiretapped 9/11 survivors, bribed police and other officials, and currently has its corporate heads embroiled in criminal investigations outside the US.
That's something to be concerned about.
Oh yeah, they also hired Rachel Marsden [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fraser_University_1997_harassment_controversy].
As far as the birther comments go. While Oreilly, Beck, and Hanity have all question and looked at the birther issue, all of them have firmly stated that they don't believe in the issue and they think it hurts the conservative cause. The point is they looked at the issue and actually considered it. That is the job of all respectable journalists, not to simply laugh something away because it seems far fetched or doesn't fit into your personal ideology.
They concidered it. That right there is why they are NOT journalists, but propagandists.
As a journalist, you don't 'consider' things like that. You
INVESTIGATE. You don't 'express a belief.' You don't 'look at both sides.' You fucking take your fat ass, you get it down to the Hawaiian records whatever, and you use your press credentials and whatever freedom of information laws you can do and talk to whatever insiders you can, so that you can produce the document which proves it.
See, that's why Fox is bad journalism; they claim they 'examined' it but they weren't the ones going out to
investigate it. But... in the name of 'fair and balanced', they were certainly willing to
pose the question as if it was a valid issue.
This is what a
journalist does.
Politician makes public claim that may or may not be true
Claim is verifiable or falsifiable through production of document
Journalist gets off his ass and finds the document
Journalist makes story showing the document exists, and that the politician is either telling the truth or spinning lies.
This is not journalism:
Politician makes public claim that may or may not be true
CLaim is verifiable or falsifiable through production of document
"Journalist" says 'We have no idea about this issue, but isn't interesting how the document hasn't been produced?'
"Journalist" makes "Fair and Balanced" report on both "sides"
There's no "SIDES" in something that can be fact checked.
