Worst media reporting

[ashibaka]

Does it get any worse than this?

http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm

And let's not forget their motto-- "We Report, You Decide".

 

[faerieevaH]

Ouch.... no matter which point of view you have on the war, THAT is a far cry from journalistic objectivity. Whatever fault BBC reporting or that individual reporter has made, this is NOT the way to report on something on a news broadcast.
Unless, since I don't have FOX, is this put separate from the main news and put forward as an opinion piece?

 

[gwyyn]

Many of the fox news programs has a 5 minute spot at end of the show where the broadcaster can give their editorial opinion. This was one of those editorial opinions given at the end of the show.

gwyyn

 

[sedders]

Many of the fox news programs has a 5 minute spot at end of the show where the broadcaster can give their editorial opinion. This was one of those editorial opinions given at the end of the show.

gwyyn

of course only if their opinion is the same as Murdoch.

 

[faerieevaH]

Ah, thank you, you both. If it's an opinion piece, then the broadcaster of course has a right to make his own opinion, or that of the network known. As long as people do not confuse it with the actual news. Still... the propaganda tone is something I personally could do without. Then again, this is a commercial network that probably broadcasts mainly for a public with opinions that go along the same lines, I presume? And not a state funded, but independent source of critical and unbiassed news?

 

[Ikaria]

Then again, this is a commercial network that probably broadcasts mainly for a public with opinions that go along the same lines, I presume?

Yes.

And not a state funded, but independent source of critical and unbiassed news?

Fox isn't state funded, but it's not an independent source of critical and unbiased news. It's a grovelling megafone for the Republican party.

 

[Kelly]

It's a grovelling megafone for the Republican party.

Oh well, it balances out CNN and the Dems!

 

[faerieevaH]

Call me naive but... isn't news suposed to be unbiassed and a-political?

 

[Ikaria]

Does it get any worse than this?

http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm

And let's not forget their motto-- "We Report, You Decide".

Quite apart from the obvious lies he tells (for example, Gilligan was not pro-Iraq at all, and there's no evidence that he was anti-American; the Beeb did not say that he had the right to lie or exagerrate; the Beeb didn't have to "pay up" at all, since nobody was suing them in the first place; Kelly did not suicide as a result of Gilligan's report but as a result of the government's failure to keep his name secret), this little puff piece is probably actionable, since it constitutes a classic example of character defamation.

Four words: American insecurity; sour grapes.

 

[Ikaria]

Oh well, it balances out CNN and the Dems!

I would love to see some evidence that CNN is a voice for the Dems. It certainly wasn't doing much for them during the war, was it?

 

[Ikaria]

Call me naive but... isn't news suposed to be unbiassed and a-political?

Yes - but not in America.

That would constitute an abuse of our freedoms.

 

[goodgirl]

FYI, "My Word" is an opinion piece run at the end of the regular broadcast. So it is set apart by opinion. However, most legit new organizations don't do that because it's easy for a viewer to mistake opinion for fact (especially in news, when people tune in and tune out frequently). Using a regular news anchor for an opinion piece is an even worse idea, because the line blurs even further. It's like if Peter Jennings did a paid advertisement for, say, Roche, then he'd lose his credibility for reporting health-related stories, even though it might be obvious that his ad is a commercial.
Anybody who says CNN is liberal has never watched Moneyline.

 

[Ikaria]

FYI, "My Word" is an opinion piece run at the end of the regular broadcast. So it is set apart by opinion.

I understand that it's opinion. What I take issue with, is the fact that he's defaming another journalist and telling blatant lies on national TV.

"It's just an opinion" is not a legitimate defence for this kind of unprofessional behaviour.

 

[Paul12]

Oh well, it balances out CNN and the Dems!

Yeah because that Democratic bastion CNN didn't reply the Dean concession speech twelve times per hour for a week straight, knocking out the candidate almost singlehandily. CNN is the most objective of all the major news channels, but even they are definately not a 'liberal' station by any means.

Fox News calling itself fair and balanced is the equivalent to the US Supreme Court's logic for segregation until 1954; "separate but equal, fair and balanced." Give me a break.

 

[Patristic]

CNN is the most objective of all the major news channels, but even they are definately not a 'liberal' station by any means.

CNN is not the most objective of the major news channels. Their coverage of the war made it look like we were back in Vietnam, and this was last Spring when we were rolling towards Baghdad. I hardly call that impartial and accurate.

 

[Kelly]

I've grown really fond of the BBC news, actually.

 

[minus]

CNN is not the most objective of the major news channels. Their coverage of the war made it look like we were back in Vietnam, and this was last Spring when we were rolling towards Baghdad. I hardly call that impartial and accurate.

So who is the most objective, impartial, and accurate of the major news channels? Surely not Faux news uh, I mean Fox. If it was up to Murdoch and the rest of the crew at Fox all of us dissenters would be locked up down in Guantanamo right now. What it comes down to is that networks like CNN answer to the dollar not to the democrat or republican party. As for Fox they are neither fair nor balanced.

 

[trunks2k]

I've grown really fond of the BBC news, actually.

Same here. The BBC, besides them giving a much more unbiased opnion slant on the news, just has an auroa of professionalism. The news stations in the US are advertising fiends, they rely on shock value, and things like a 2 minute intoduction with attention grabbing music and graphics for a 1 minute report on the subject. The BBC has much more of "ok, here's what's going on".

There are two things I tend to watch for the news, the BBC news for real news and a better understanding of what is going on in the world, when it happens to be on public television. And, the Daily Show. While the Daily show is certainly a fake news show, Jon Stewart and his team do an excellent job of putting things into perspective and showing just how stupid a lot of things can be.

 

[goodgirl]

ah, the daily show... what every journalists secretly wants to be when he grows up.

 

[PhantomLlama]

Does it get any worse than this?

http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm

And let's not forget their motto-- "We Report, You Decide".

That is the most hideous distortion of the truth by a professional 'reporter' I have ever heard.