Rust

JAMedia said:
Is there an authoritative source for this story? Outside the US Fox News isn't taken seriously by anyone.
Click to expand...

Fox News is a fine source of news. It's their opinion section that's biased. But that's essentially true of any outlet. There is marginal bias in their news coverage in terms of which stories they cover or ignore or what they choose to emphasize (again, like any outlet). But they don't just print lies. Of course, I'm referring to mostly what I see in print on their website since I don't regularly watch news programs from any source. But my google news feed directs me to print articles on the Fox website along with dozens of other sources and they have earned my trust as far as their basic journalistic practices go. They've also had numerous well-regarded TV anchors, including Chris Wallace. Consequently, their straight news programs are often in direct conflict with their opinion programs.
 
DLD said:
I think you're confusing Fox with BBC.
Click to expand...

Not at all.
The BBC is highly respected globally for its acuracy.
Fox on the other hand isn't by anyone anywhere.
In fact isn't Fox in court over a lot of lies it put out re the last US Presidential election?


I recall that in 1990-91 gulf war some one was doing a documentary on Al-Jazera the Arabic News Service. They were following them around and for a while, some weeks, Al-Jazera (and the documentary team) were based in the US military Press Centre with all the other journalists. The documentary tream spoke to the officer in charge about there being Al-Jazera inthere and he said "we welcome everyone from Fox at one end of the spectrum to Al Jazera onthe other". A few weeks later the documentary team interviewed the officer again and asked what he thought of Al Jazera his comment was that they were "middle of the road" but Fox was still "out on the edge".

In the last decade Fox had to applogise publically about inacuracies (lies) it put out about Birmingham UK, a city I live 20 miles from. Fox has also carried other stories about the UK that are just plain wrong.
 
JAMedia said:
Not at all.
The BBC is highly respected globally for its acuracy.
Fox on the other hand isn't by anyone anywhere.
In fact isn't Fox in court over a lot of lies it put out re the last US Presidential election?


I recall that in 1990-91 gulf war some one was doing a documentary on Al-Jazera the Arabic News Service. They were following them around and for a while, some weeks, Al-Jazera (and the documentary team) were based in the US military Press Centre with all the other journalists. The documentary tream spoke to the officer in charge about there being Al-Jazera inthere and he said "we welcome everyone from Fox at one end of the spectrum to Al Jazera onthe other". A few weeks later the documentary team interviewed the officer again and asked what he thought of Al Jazera his comment was that they were "middle of the road" but Fox was still "out on the edge".

In the last decade Fox had to applogise publically about inacuracies (lies) it put out about Birmingham UK, a city I live 20 miles from. Fox has also carried other stories about the UK that are just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

Al Jazeera is probably one of the best news outlets in the world, no?

It looks like a Fox pundit (Pirro) interviewed someone who called Birmingham a "totally Muslim city," for which they had to apologize. Again, this is their opinion section.

There is a lawsuit from a voting machine company against Fox and various hosts, but honestly I don't think that the type of conspiracy theory they were peddling is categorically worse than similar intimations made 4 years previous about the illegitimacy of Trump's election. But a corporation that can bring suit is the target of the slander in this case.

It may be worth remembering that Fox was the first broadcaster -- way out in front, in fact -- to call Arizona for Biden (and therefore the entire election). Their data analyst was intensely pressured by partisans to retract his call, but he stuck to his guns.
 
ahalpert said:
It may be worth remembering that Fox was the first broadcaster -- way out in front, in fact -- to call Arizona for Biden (and therefore the entire election). Their data analyst was intensely pressured by partisans to retract his call, but he stuck to his guns.
Click to expand...

Predicting the results of an election before all the votes have been tallied is hardly evidence of journalistic integrity.
 
ahalpert said:
Al Jazeera is probably one of the best news outlets in the world, no?
Click to expand...

It is good but I don't know about "best". They are very good journalists. Most are from the Middle East and so have a Middle East persprctive on things. Whcih is fair enough but may confuse people who don't understnad the phrase "The rest of the world" :-)

ahalpert said:
It looks like a Fox pundit (Pirro) interviewed someone who called Birmingham a "totally Muslim city," for which they had to apologize. Again, this is their opinion section.
Click to expand...

Yes. More than slightly mis representing things. He was on about "no go areas" in Birmingham where I normally wander around, day or night. Birmingham UK is multi ethnic but still very much majority white. It probalby has as many sikhs and hindus as Moslems. (not sure howmany Rasta's. It also has a vibrant chinese quater and a gun quater full of gun makers.

What Fox news was stating as "facts" were blatant lies with no connection to reality. They use these lies to build a false story.

When Fox gave a public appology the "nice" description they gave of Birminham UK was equally as false and caused as much hilarity and mirth and the initial story caused anger. One has to wonder if Fox has any inteligent adults working for it.

There are quite a few other stories Fox has put out I know to be equally false. Especially their stuff on knife crime in the UK... cherry picking random statistics to build a story that was almost the opposite of reality.

As I said outside the USA no one takes Fox seriously.
 
I scan BBC's site daily (OK, it's mostly the football pages but I often scan their suggested stories too). I get Fox News updates on my Facebook feed. Fox is far more dependable than BBC to, at least, sound neutral and objective. BBC is filled with the editorial content and opinions within its news pieces. If one seeks a more objective analysis from the UK, one should probably read the Telegraph and the Sunday Times. But if the Guardian and the Independent is more to your taste, then you probably source the bulk of your knowledge from BBC.
 
JAMedia said:
.

What Fox news was stating as "facts" were blatant lies with no connection to reality. They use these lies to build a false story.
Click to expand...

I don't pay attention to any of their TV personalities. But when Chris Wallace anchored there, it was difficult to discern his personal opinions when he gave an interview or a report.

There have been a few epic, high-profile fails on the part of NYT et al in recent years, namely the story that Trump was secretly supported by and blackmailed by Putin, as well as the story that Hunter Biden's laptop was a foreign intelligence operation. Maybe these errors were committed in good faith, but I think it's hard to claim the journalistic high ground after committing such monumental blunders.

I don't know what the BBC had to say on these subjects because I don't watch it. But I have great respect for the BBC. (Even though John Cleese says he's taking his Fawlty Towers reboot to another channel because BBC wanted too much editorial control.)
 
ahalpert said:
I don't know what the BBC had to say on these subjects because I don't watch it. But I have great respect for the BBC. (Even though John Cleese says he's taking his Fawlty Towers reboot to another channel because BBC wanted too much editorial control.)
Click to expand...

Be fair... would you write John Cleese a blank cheque and leave him to get on with it?
You are a lot braver than I am :-)
 
DLD said:
I scan BBC's site daily (OK, it's mostly the football pages but I often scan their suggested stories too). I get Fox News updates on my Facebook feed. Fox is far more dependable than BBC to, at least, sound neutral and objective. BBC is filled with the editorial content and opinions within its news pieces. If one seeks a more objective analysis from the UK, one should probably read the Telegraph and the Sunday Times. But if the Guardian and the Independent is more to your taste, then you probably source the bulk of your knowledge from BBC.
Click to expand...

The Times, Telegraph, Guardian and BBC unlike Fox are al factually accurate. They do have an edotiral bias Telegraph: centre right. Times centre, Guardian center left. The BBC tends to be between the Times and the Guardian. Fox is at best far right. When it isn't lying.
 
ahalpert said:
It may be worth remembering that Fox was the first broadcaster -- way out in front, in fact -- to call Arizona for Biden (and therefore the entire election). Their data analyst was intensely pressured by partisans to retract his call, but he stuck to his guns.
Click to expand...

Was the Data Analyst a Fox employee or an external pundit they brought in?
If a Fox employee kudos to them.
 
JA, I don't know if we get an American version of BBC here, but it is truly awful (website). It is such a disappointment from a company I used to respect. It is just as click-baited as any website. For example, in an article about a stamped in South Korea, their tease line is ""Video shows body bags...". Nothing about a stampede or any indication of what the news was about; the opening line is 'We've got video of body bags and you'll want to see that. ' That's right out of any old grocery store checkout line tabloid of days gone by.

They all stink.
 
ahalpert said:
John Cleese is one of the all-time greats. I'd give him all the money and no strings attached.

Incidentally, he's currently whoring himself out on a website called Cameo where you can hire him for $400 to record a custom video message - https://www.cameo.com/notsirjohncleese
Click to expand...

Janine Pirro is also there. I don't begrudge Cleese - he's 83 and can't even stop a Fawlty Towers reboot - but I'd prohibit my news employees from this pretty cheesy way to earn a buck. It's one thing to have ghost-written bestsellers a la Bill O'Reilly, it's entirely another to whore a news persona to "Muffy, Jimmy likes you".

And, likewise, I would prohibit sportscasters like Jim Nance to endorse the product (golf clubs) that he is covering, even if indirectly.

But I have no no problems with John Madden or Bob Uecker doing beer ads. There they're just celebrities.
 
JAMedia said:
Fox is at best far right. When it isn't lying...
Click to expand...

A) It's the most popular news channel in the US, dwarfing its competition in audiences.

B) We're entering a political territory, Which we shouldn't.

C) The UK is not the US. It doesn't even speak the same language.

D) I could probably pick any BBC article and shred it to pieces.

E) One can shred most news articles, if one knows the subject in depth, because they are written for an "average reader" with very few subtleties known to a specialist

F) You don't have to read Fox or the American Spectator (if it's still in business). But I don't think treating an American as if he were a Leeds fan earns anyone any plaudits.
 
ahalpert said:
It's called statistics
Click to expand...

It's not statistics because they are not in possession of the actual facts. It is just a prediction based on exit polls. That is not statistics. And neither one is an indicator of journalist integrity or accuracy, anyway.
 
Doug Jensen said:
It's not statistics because they are not in possession of the actual facts. It is just a prediction based on exit polls. That is not statistics. And neither one is an indicator of journalist integrity or accuracy, anyway.
Click to expand...

They typically call a state when their model determines that the probability of victory for the declared victor is greater than some very high threshold. 99.99% or something. And it's not based on exit polls. It's based on the trends from partial results in the current election as well as historical results from previous elections. For example, if a candidate needs to win 60% of the remaining vote, but the entirety of the remaining vote comes from districts that historically have gone for the opposing party, then his odds are looking very bad. In fact, the AP no longer conducts exit polls. https://www.ap.org/about/our-role-in-elections/how-we-call-races

When is the last time you remember a state being called for a candidate by the AP and then reversed after all the votes are counted?

I'm using their Biden call as an indicator or journalistic integrity because Fox is known for being friendly to the GOP. Calling Arizona for Biden (especially when no one else did) is not what their viewers wanted to hear and was not helpful to Trump's effort to control the media narrative and potentially turn the election in his favor via the courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top