News Fox News: Fair & Balanced? Investigating Claims of Corruption

[TheStatutoryApe]

AFAIK, "Fair and Balanced" is the slogan of the network (it appears next to the name on the website). However, I don't think that should be taken to imply that everything on the network or website is pure news, as they do have a clearly labeled "opinion" section (for example) under which Glen Beck's name appears.

Sorry. I've been in a bad mood and my posts probably have not been very thoughtful.

I do not believe that there is any legal reason why a company motto/tag line must accurately represent all of the individual projects under its umbrella. The individual shows all have their own producers, sponsors, ect, and are responsible for themselves. If they do anything illegal on their own then it goes up the chain. Otherwise there is no down the chain legal responsibility. O'Reilly is not legally responsible for any claims made by Fox and Fox is not legally responsible for making sure that O'Reilly fits their company motto.

 

[mheslep]

Glen Beck is a totally different animal. He basically started the Tea Parties ...

You're mistaken. He may have publicized the 9/12 march.

 

[mheslep]

Ive never heard them claim another network to be corrupt. CNN doesn't seem too tilted one way or the other...

Please. Anderson Cooper started the vile 'teabag' cracks on the air. Yuk Yuk.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/04/15/cnns-anderson-cooper-its-hard-talk-when-youre-tea-bagging

 

[WhoWee]

You're mistaken. He may have publicized the 9/12 march.

Beck started something back around April called the 9/12 Project. The date is symbolic to heightened awareness after 9/11.

I commented that "He basically started the Tea Parties ..." because he used his radio show and TV show to encourage people to form groups - not that he was a designated leader.

 

[mheslep]

Beck started something back around April called the 9/12 Project. The date is symbolic to heightened awareness after 9/11.

I commented that "He basically started the Tea Parties ..." because he used his radio show and TV show to encourage people to form groups - not that he was a designated leader.

Multitudes of people encourage other people to form groups. Beck did not start or even inspire the Tea Parties of this past Spring, nor was he some kind of guiding force behind them. If he cheered them, well so did thousands of others and he happened to have a microphone.

 

[russ_watters]

Nor did Beck have anything to do with the march in Washington last weekend. That's discussed here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=336730

 

[Al68]

What sides of any issue has a CNN news caster picked?

This is just too easy. CNN continuously refers to health care "reform", and portrays the two sides as those in favor of health care "reform" and those against it.

If that bias isn't obvious, here's an analogy: Suppose that when discussing the "No Child Left Behind Act", a news station repeatedly portrayed the two sides as those in favor of "leaving children behind" and those against it.

Most would recognize the bias immediately, and that the news station was either deliberately taking sides or had an ideology that prevented them from recognizing the bias.

Any news source that depicts the current health care debate as those in favor of "reform" and those against it is obviously taking sides in the same way.

This is one example of thousands for CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS every week for decades. I know that the bias is difficult to recognize for those it favors, but it's just as obvious to the rest of us as the hypothetical for or against "leaving children behind" would be for anyone that bias was against.

If anyone wants more examples, there is no limit. But I can't be thorough, since it would be like counting grains of sand at the beach. This is the kind of bias that has been denied for years, possibly because it just isn't as obvious to those it favors.

 

[kyleb]

Kyleb, you are really arguing a usless line of thought here. You don't have to argue your way into a point about Fox's bias: I agree that Fox is biased. So now what?

I'm trying to figure out how you support your claim that it is anything less than dishonest for them to claim they are "far an balanced". Would you argue a statement like "water is dry" is a not a lie but simply a "value statement" too?

 

[drankin]

I'm trying to figure out how you support your claim that it is anything less than dishonest for them to claim they are "far an balanced". Would you argue a statement like "water is dry" is a not a lie but simply a "value statement" too?

It's totally dishonest. And everyone knows that and like it anyway. What's your point? "Fox Network has dishonest marketing!". So friggin what. Most marketing slogans are. To take it seriously and cry fowl is laughable. It is absolutely no different than saying you have the best steaks in town. A totally subjective statement.

All news channels state what they consider facts, but the facts are simply a perception of facts from a point of view. As Al68 is saying, just because we don't like this health bill doesn't mean we are against "reform"! Most of us who do not like this bill want "reform".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's totally dishonest. And everyone knows that and like it anyway. What's your point? "Fox Network has dishonest marketing!". So friggin what. Most marketing slogans are. To take it seriously and cry fowl is laughable. It is absolutely no different than saying you have the best steaks in town. A totally subjective statement.

Besides even this, to sue for false advertising one must be a consumer of the product who was misled by the advertising and can demonstrate and quantify damages incurred as a direct result of the false advertising.

 

[Proton Soup]

good grief. why do you guys get so upset about Fox? it's pretty much the only right-leaning network on the air. most others lean left. MSNBC leans far left. CNN is pretty close to center. most all the political leanings of any of them comes out in editorial fashion, not straight news. and even in editorial shows where hosts lean one way or the other, they will invite commentary from representatives of opposing views.

 

[kyleb]

It's totally dishonest. And everyone knows that and like it anyway. What's your point?

I wasn't making a point there, I was asking a question about a point another poster made.

It is absolutely no different than saying you have the best steaks in town. A totally subjective statement.

Seems more like saying you have the best steaks in town while not making any observable effort to even serve a decent one.

Besides even this, to sue for false advertising one must be a consumer of the product who was misled by the advertising and can demonstrate and quantify damages incurred as a direct result of the false advertising.

Did anyone suggest legal action here?

 

[Proton Soup]

Seems more like saying you have the best steaks in town while not making any observable effort to even serve a decent one.

totally subjective statement

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Did anyone suggest legal action here?

What's the point of saying they are guilty of false advertising then? Just to keep hand waving?

 

[kyleb]

What's the point of saying they are guilty of false advertising then? Just to keep hand waving?

Who are you accusing of saying Fox is guilty of false advertising? Who is doing the hand waving here?

 

[drankin]

What's the point of saying they are guilty of false advertising then? Just to keep hand waving?

Exactly. I've been following this thread for a few days just amazed that it keeps going. To me this thread separates the subjective minds from the objective. The naive continue to cry fowl about an obvious marketing slogan as if some sort of moral crime has just been discovered. How dare a media outlet claim to be totally objective and then be successful to boot! Obviously, it's not the SLOGAN that makes the network successful. If one is going to fault the accuracy of the news (not the commentary), at least support it with the incriminating content.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Who are you accusing of saying Fox is guilty of false advertising? Who is doing the hand waving here?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2345473&postcount=5
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2345483&postcount=9
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2347540&postcount=19
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2348076&postcount=22

So there is no discussion in these posts regarding claims made in advertising and their accuracy? Are we reading different threads or something? Are we going to start splitting hairs now? You were only saying you thought it was dishonest, not that it was false advertising? Kind of like saying you didn't mean that MrX murdered anyone only that it seemed he had dealt a lethal blow to the person with malice and intent.

 

[kyleb]

You were only saying you thought it was dishonest, not that it was false advertising?

Right, I see nothing honest about it, but nothing illegal either. I suppose my perspective depends on considering ethics to be the basis for law rather than the other way around.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I suppose my perspective depends on considering ethics to be the basis for law rather than the other way around.

Shouldn't you then feel that 'dishonest advertising' should be illegal?

 

[kyleb]

It seems you have mistaken me for an authoritarian. I don't believe anything should be illegal other than that which demonstrability infringes on the rights of others, and that is hardly the case here.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm trying to figure out how you support your claim that it is anything less than dishonest for them to claim they are "far an balanced". Would you argue a statement like "water is dry" is a not a lie but simply a "value statement" too?

"Water is dry" is a fact-based statement.

In any case, did you have a look at any of the reading materials I provided about false advertising? The one about "puffery" covers this exactly. Puffery is an obviously exagerrated, non-fact-based claim that an intelligent consumer immediately recognizes and ignores.

Seems more like saying you have the best steaks in town while not making any observable effort to even serve a decent one.

Even if someone holds a contest and finds that I make the worst steaks in town, nothing has changed. Subjective is subjective.

Did anyone suggest legal action here?

People are searching for a point in your posts, kyleb. If you're not suggesting a remedy for this, then you're just arguing to be argumentative:

You think it is dishonest. Fine. Assume for the sake of argument that I agree completely. Now what?

 

[russ_watters]

Right, I see nothing honest about it, but nothing illegal either. I suppose my perspective depends on considering ethics to be the basis for law rather than the other way around.

The two sentences seem to contradict each other. Are you saying in the first that it is not, in fact, illegal and in the second that you believe it should be illegal??

It seems you have mistaken me for an authoritarian. I don't believe anything should be illegal other than that which demonstrability infringes on the rights of others, and that is hardly the case here.

So then you think that ethics are the basis of our laws, but you don't think they should be?

 

[russ_watters]

Lol, jack, I'm a moderate to medium conservative Republican. I'm not sure that post you replied to gave any clues to that, but neither do I think it implied I wasn't!

 

[WhoWee]

Lol, jack, I'm a moderate to medium conservative Republican. I'm not sure that post you replied to gave any clues to that, but neither do I think it implied I wasn't!

That's pretty funny.

In the spirit of the moment, I just put Hannity on - he's doing a special from the San Joaquin Valley. He's doing a story about a man made drought with Paul Rodriguez.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_acorn

Apparently thousands of workers have been displaced and the land is turning into a 2009 dust bowl to save a 2" minnow. To add insult to injury, the workers (in America's most fertile valley) are standing in line and being fed with food from China. They are making a plea to Obama to step in and turn the water back on - there's a canal, about 1/2 mile away, channeling the water to the ocean.

 

[byronm]

That's pretty funny.

In the spirit of the moment, I just put Hannity on - he's doing a special from the San Joaquin Valley. He's doing a story about a man made drought with Paul Rodriguez.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_acorn

Apparently thousands of workers have been displaced and the land is turning into a 2009 dust bowl to save a 2" minnow. To add insult to injury, the workers (in America's most fertile valley) are standing in line and being fed with food from China. They are making a plea to Obama to step in and turn the water back on - there's a canal, about 1/2 mile away, channeling the water to the ocean.

A little research..

A) the area is under a severe drought and conservation plan right now
B) the existing aquifer was built over 50 years ago and not designed to sustain an 80% agriculture demand of the water
C) Poverty is an issue in this area regardless of the drought
D) Whoever decided to create a city the size of LA that would suck all the water within 400 miles radius was a RETARD
E) Mis management of the 3 inch little fishes could have a devastating impact on the salmon and sturgeon population and from that the devastating impact goes onto anything that relies on fish protein.


But hey, if i was a farmer and i heard they were conserving water for fish i'd be pissed to.. But look at it this way.. if you kill those fish and all the fish that eat those fish just to have short term water supplies that won't meet the water demands of 10 years from now then not only will the farmers continue to suffer but the fisherman, the sport fishing and commercial fishing sectors and wildlife in general that depends on any fish protein that is up the food chain from those little minnows.

Easy to blame environmentalists.. however.. maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be using that much water anyway that we have to risk entire species of fish to survive in conditions that obviously aren't sustainable for the farmers and the environment. If we're sucking natural resources dry and willing to kill off the native species of animals in that area to milk our farms for more then something is wrong (and it aint them darned environmentalists hehe)

 

[WhoWee]

A little research..

A) the area is under a severe drought and conservation plan right now
B) the existing aquifer was built over 50 years ago and not designed to sustain an 80% agriculture demand of the water
C) Poverty is an issue in this area regardless of the drought
D) Whoever decided to create a city the size of LA that would suck all the water within 400 miles radius was a RETARD
E) Mis management of the 3 inch little fishes could have a devastating impact on the salmon and sturgeon population and from that the devastating impact goes onto anything that relies on fish protein.But hey, if i was a farmer and i heard they were conserving water for fish i'd be pissed to.. But look at it this way.. if you kill those fish and all the fish that eat those fish just to have short term water supplies that won't meet the water demands of 10 years from now then not only will the farmers continue to suffer but the fisherman, the sport fishing and commercial fishing sectors and wildlife in general that depends on any fish protein that is up the food chain from those little minnows.

Easy to blame environmentalists.. however.. maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be using that much water anyway that we have to risk entire species of fish to survive in conditions that obviously aren't sustainable for the farmers and the environment. If we're sucking natural resources dry and willing to kill off the native species of animals in that area to milk our farms for more then something is wrong (and it aint them darned environmentalists hehe)

So the minnow isn't an endangered species - it's the only food source for salmon and sturgeon? Someone better explain that to Schwarzenegger - and Hannity thought the fish were getting stuck in the pumps?

 

[Wax]

So the minnow isn't an endangered species - it's the only food source for salmon and sturgeon? Someone better explain that to Schwarzenegger - and Hannity thought the fish were getting stuck in the pumps?

What do you expect from Fox News, especially Hannity...

 

[Cyrus]

That's pretty funny.

In the spirit of the moment, I just put Hannity on - he's doing a special from the San Joaquin Valley. He's doing a story about a man made drought with Paul Rodriguez.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_acorn

Apparently thousands of workers have been displaced and the land is turning into a 2009 dust bowl to save a 2" minnow. To add insult to injury, the workers (in America's most fertile valley) are standing in line and being fed with food from China. They are making a plea to Obama to step in and turn the water back on - there's a canal, about 1/2 mile away, channeling the water to the ocean.

I'm not sure what's worse: sean hannity, or the fact that you bothered listening to him...

So the minnow isn't an endangered species - it's the only food source for salmon and sturgeon? Someone better explain that to Schwarzenegger - and Hannity thought the fish were getting stuck in the pumps?

Do believe anything you hear (from Faux News)? Seems so...

 

[WhoWee]

What do you expect from Fox News, especially Hannity...

Not so fast. We still don't have a link that supports any of this.

"A little research..

A) the area is under a severe drought and conservation plan right now
B) the existing aquifer was built over 50 years ago and not designed to sustain an 80% agriculture demand of the water
C) Poverty is an issue in this area regardless of the drought
D) Whoever decided to create a city the size of LA that would suck all the water within 400 miles radius was a RETARD
E) Mis management of the 3 inch little fishes could have a devastating impact on the salmon and sturgeon population and from that the devastating impact goes onto anything that relies on fish protein."

 

[Wax]

Not so fast. We still don't have a link that supports any of this.

"A little research..

A) the area is under a severe drought and conservation plan right now
B) the existing aquifer was built over 50 years ago and not designed to sustain an 80% agriculture demand of the water
C) Poverty is an issue in this area regardless of the drought
D) Whoever decided to create a city the size of LA that would suck all the water within 400 miles radius was a RETARD
E) Mis management of the 3 inch little fishes could have a devastating impact on the salmon and sturgeon population and from that the devastating impact goes onto anything that relies on fish protein."

I saw the exact show you were talking about and the environmentalist said the same thing. The fish provides jobs up north but Hannity keeps cutting him off before he could finish saying anything.