Slashdot Mirror

-1, Flamebait? Obviously someone with mod points has no sense of humor. This is why people jokingly refer to Fox News as "Faux news:"

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

http://www.alternet.org/news-a...

http://mathbabe.org/2012/04/21...

http://foxnewsboycott.com/fox-...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/1...

Please give specific examples to demonstrate reactionary bias in Fox News' reporting.

There are way too many to list in a Slashdot post so you can start with these:

http://foxnewslies.net/
http://www.politicususa.com/fox-news-hosts-speak-words-written-laughing.html
http://aattp.org/category/fox-news-lies-2/
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=8583

In fact, Fox has admitted to lying in Federal Appellate Court:

http://foxnewsboycott.com/resources/fox-can-lie-lawsuit/

FOX News had won the 'right' to knowingly lie in news broadcasts. The court case involved reporters who were told to lie about rBGH hormone in the production of milk; when they refused to lie on Monsanto's behalf, they were fired.

http://foxnewsboycott.com/resources/fox-can-lie-lawsuit/

Just to let you know, Fox News was sued for exactly what you're speaking on. Their defense in this case and others was that they are NOT a 'News Organization' and therefore the FCC rules don't apply to them.

And as for your sig... you think that those that hold a different view from you should be "BANNED"? Kinda goes against the whole "free exchange of ideas" thing doesn't it? How many tyrannical dictators gained power by people who felt the same way you do about people they disagreed with?

I think it's related to this...

Ugh! Not that tired argument again. OK, here we go.

The case in reference was about 2 reporters refusing to do a story because they didn't like the edits. They were fired. They took the FOX AFFILIATE that fired them to court. (Note: Affiliate, not FoxNews. Fox shows the Simpsons and Family Guy. FoxNews shows Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. They are two separate entities.)

Next, the the court never ruled that the news story was false. The closest they came was the original jury said “a false, distorted or slanted story” (from your second link). Notice the "OR" in the jury's statement. As for "distorted or slanted", shouldn't every media outlet be sued, including those links your provided? Strange. You don't seem to mind their slant. Here is a story about a recent CBS Poll about public opinion of public sector unions. The title is "Report: New York Times/CBS News Poll Slanted". Notice the last word... "Slanted"? Or are you going to tell me that Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann don't have a slant? As for "false", didn't Dan Rather run a story a while back using obviously fake documents to claim that GWB was negligent in his National Guard duties? Are saying that Rather and his producer Mapes should go to jail? Should CBS lose their broadcasting license? That is what these two reporters were suing for in their case; they wanted the local Fox affiliate to lose their license. Shouldn't CBS suffer the same fate?

As for the appeal where the jury's ruling was overturned, your second link has this:

“that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news — which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” — does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.[...] Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute.”

Again, it never says that the story was false. It claims that the reporters may not be afforded whistle-blower protection because the “news distortion policy” is not “law, rule, or regulation”. Basically, the reporters claimed that they should not have been fired because they were whistle-blowers. They claimed whistle-blower status saying that airing a false story is against the law, per the FCC regulations. The court said they were not whistle-blowers according to the law, because there is no LAW against airing a false story. The court never made a judgment on the story itself because there was no point since these two were not protected under whistle-blower laws in the first place, meaning they could be fired.

However, I can't hammer you on the misunderstanding. First, your whole point is moot because it was not FoxNews on trial here, but a local Fox affiliate (again, Simpsons vs O'Reilly). But in doing a little research on this, I found the first five or six pages Google returned were all from sites like, purefood.org, organicconsumers.org, HuffingtonPost and so on. Of course, all of these sights are slanted toward their cause, just as a story on Redstate.com would be slanted. It is difficult, if not impossible to find a non-slanted version of this story. The irony of it all is that they are all claiming FoxNews is bad f

And as for your sig... you think that those that hold a different view from you should be "BANNED"? Kinda goes against the whole "free exchange of ideas" thing doesn't it? How many tyrannical dictators gained power by people who felt the same way you do about people they disagreed with?

I think it's related to this...

It's a well known fact that a Fox News agent raped and killed a girl in 1990. Which video games did he play?

The general public generally considers "news" to mean "the truth about what is happening". (Sure, that's not accurate, but it's what most people believe it means, or should mean, at a gut level. When news organizations lie, people think poorly of it.

http://foxnewsboycott.com/resources/fox-can-lie-lawsuit/

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.

There was apparently some confusion as to whether the FCC actually prohibited news organizations from lying -- but this court case cleared that up. However, this does also mean that Fox (and Rupert Murdoch) are the only ones who have specifically gone to court in order to protect their right to broadcast lies. As a news organization. The others at least pretend to try to give the truth, even if in doing so they incorporate varying degrees of bias, but Fox flat out deliberately lies. (The others might also, granted, especially now that Fox cleared the way, but that would go against what many would consider professional journalistic integrity.)

http://foxnewsboycott.com/