Who will protect us from Fox News? 53 replies

Please wait...

Mihail VIP Member

President of Novistrana

50 XP

19th January 2003

0 Uploads

15,509 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

[color=black]Well I just found this neat little article, very intresting indeed, in it, they try to understand how fox news is different then al-jazeera, they say that al-jazeera is all half turths and need to be censored well Why not Fox News too?[/color] Who will protect us from Fox? Censoring Al-Jazeera a double standard U.S. cable news station abusive, openly biased

ANTONIA ZERBISIAS Now that its critics have ensured that Al-Jazeera will never get on Canada's digital dial uncensored, will they now fight to protect us from Fox News?

Recall that, last week, the federal broadcast regulator gave a half-assed go-ahead to the Arabic-language news channel, requiring that distributors who add it to their offerings keep it free of "abusive comment."

That decision, complete with onerous guilty-until-proven-innocent restrictions, was reached after lobbying by both the Canadian Jewish Congress and B'nai Brith Canada who, naturally, were concerned about anti-Jewish hate speech.

Many people applauded how cable operators must tape and monitor Al Jazeera 24/7 to head off possible offensive material. So, now that the cable industry has yet another application to import Fox News before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), will anyone call for Fox to be similarly muzzled to stop potentially "abusive comment" on the U.S. channel?

To be clear: I am all for having both Fox News and Al-Jazeera on Canada's TV screens — uncut and uncensored. They offer world views that are foreign in all senses of the word. News viewers deserve unlimited options to see events from as many perspectives as possible.

But, not only does Fox, the U.S.'s top-rated and, arguably, most influential cable news channel, regularly abuse the truth, it also abuses politicians, pundits, peacemakers and public figures with whom its political slant does not concur.

For instance, check out how Fox's biggest mouth, Bill O'Reilly, chews out Jeremy Glick, whose father, a Port Authority worker, died in the World Trade Center on 9/11 — all because Glick signed an anti-war advertisement early last year.

On his show, O'Reilly shouted down Glick, called his view of the world "warped," repeatedly told him to "Shut up!" and finally cut his mike. Glick later said that, off-camera, O'Reilly ordered him to "Get out of my studio before I tear you to f------g pieces!" The sequence, and transcripts of it, are all over the Internet. It also appears in Outfoxed, a hot, new political documentary in a year exploding with hot political documentaries.

Sponsored by the liberal activist organization MoveOn.org and the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, the film, available on DVD, is a blistering, and yes, biased attack on Fox.

To catalogue all of Fox's assaults on the truth would fill this paper and more. (You can find well-documented evidence of how it twists events on the MoveOn and CAP Web sites, as well as on MediaMatters.org and Fair.org.

From its role in getting George W. Bush into the Oval Office, to sending Americans to die in Iraq, to working against the election of the Kerry-Edwards ticket, Fox is the White House's trained attack dog.

Yesterday, referring to its biases and distortions, MoveOn.org filed a (conveniently well-timed) petition with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) complaining that Fox is guilty of false advertising.

"Fox News has violated section 5 by using the slogan and mark 'Fair and Balanced' to advertise and promote the Fox News Channel (FNC) to consumers, and to induce consumers to watch FNC, despite the fact that FNC's news and commentary programming is not remotely 'fair' or 'balanced' but, rather, is deliberately and consistently distorted and twisted to promote the Republican Party of the U.S. and an extreme right-wing viewpoint," says the complaint.

Meanwhile, the British government recently chastised Fox for violating regulations preventing the media from making "false statements by undermining facts." Anchor John Gibson was cited for deliberately lying about the BBC, accusing it of anti-Americanism and, ironically, fudging news about the war on Iraq.

So what will happen in Canada? This month, and not for the first time in recent years, O'Reilly abused Canadians, calling our teens "flat out ignorant" because, in a survey published in the National Post during the federal election campaign, 40 per cent of our youth (64 per cent in Quebec) said they think the U.S. is "evil."

Never mind — because O'Reilly sure didn't mention it — that probably twice that many Canadian kids are in love with American culture and consumer goods. Forget that our kids may well know more about the U.S. than American kids know about Canada or perhaps the world. O'Reilly denigrated Canadians on his show, subjecting our kids to "abusive comment."

Yesterday in the Post, Ed Morgan, national president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, published an op-ed praising the Canadian limitations on Al-Jazeera. Referring to how it airs "vile" material, Morgan noted the channel had, along with hosting American and Israeli leaders, interviewed Ku Klux Klan chief David Duke in 2002.

The Post made a big deal of that, by highlighting the bit in boldface and larger type. But Fox News had Duke on as well, also in 2002, discussing — and this is from Duke's Web site where you can buy a video of the interview for $25 (U.S.) — "the Israeli involvement in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

So just what is the difference between Fox and Al-Jazeera?

Go see Control Room, Jehane Noujaim's revealing documentary about Al-Jazeera, and you'll hear U.S. Marine Lt. Josh Rushing, former Central Command spokesperson, say the Arabic channel is no less slanted than Fox, which "plays to American patriotism" instead of Arab nationalism.

Which is why you have to wonder if the Canadian critics of Al-Jazeera plan to write about how we should be protected from Fox's abusive and biased content.




Mihail VIP Member

President of Novistrana

50 XP

19th January 2003

0 Uploads

15,509 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago
Mike 51

Bush/Cheney 2004 apparently

50 XP

27th September 2003

0 Uploads

526 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago

Here's what got FOX's John Gibson censured. I found it even funnier the next week, when he responded to the censure by saying that the British government had no right to attack anyone (obviously not including the BBC, seeing as he crows over how "the British government [rightly] slammed the BBC"). The next week was the icing on the cake, with a piece saying that the only explanation for his censure was that all Brits (I'm serious, look it up if you can) were anti-American and anti-Bush.

Enjoy. ;)




Big {Daddy}

Get in!

50 XP

2nd October 2003

0 Uploads

1,708 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago

I check out Al Jazeera's website from time to time. It's really not that different to any British news agency, except they tend to concentrate on Middle Eastern affairs. They have some great satirical cartoons.

btw, you have some crap on the end of your hyperlink Mike, it won't load unless you take it off.




Zab

BROtastic

50 XP

30th March 2003

0 Uploads

8,186 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago

It's not Fox News..it's Faux News..:p




Mike 51

Bush/Cheney 2004 apparently

50 XP

27th September 2003

0 Uploads

526 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago

Yeah sorry, too late to edit. Everyone go here. If it still doesn't work, do what Big Daddy said.




Octovon

Spaceman

54,945 XP

5th August 2003

0 Uploads

5,317 Posts

0 Threads

#7 14 years ago

I get the Toronto Star, as I live just outside Toronto and happened to read [literally] that article this morning.

There is nothing wrong with Al-Jazeera, its a news-network much like any other. I visit its website as well from time to time. I find nothing wrong with what they report and nothing offensive.

It was protested here by pretty much only the Canadian Jewish Congress and B'nai Brith because some material seen on Al-Jazeera can be seen as anti-semetic. The fact of the matter was that pretty much the only anti-semetic notions on Al-Jazeera were from Osama bin Laden and not from the news itself. In my opinion what is shown as 'offensive' on Al-Jazeera is no more 'offensive' than what is seen on any other news network, even North American networks. I also think that the CJC and B'nai Brith's attempts to censure Al-Jazeera from Canadian cable is simply anti-Arab due to the Arab views on Israel and Palestine.

If Canadian cable networks want to show Al-Jazeera, they are responsible for censuring what is deemed 'inappropriate' by the CRTC [Canada's FCC]. I find this to be blatantly unjust and that Al-Jazeera should not be confined to censorship complained about by only the CJC and B'nai Brith. I think they denied cable airing rights to Italy's RIA because it would destroy Canadian-Italian small time networks [but there's not too many of those].




!moof

Note to self: Find pants.

50 XP

19th October 2002

0 Uploads

2,321 Posts

0 Threads

#8 14 years ago

We shouldn't be protected from offensive material unless we are incapable of doing ourselves. If it's bad, just don't watch!




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#9 14 years ago

Fox news is not extreme right. Al Jazeera is extreme left. However, I don't think we should censor either news casting group. Let people watch Al Jazeera, go for it. And anyone that sais Fox news is extreme right has a couple rocks rolling in their brain. Yes they are right, but CNN and others are very much left, so why don't we censor all news groups? This is ridiculous.




Mike 51

Bush/Cheney 2004 apparently

50 XP

27th September 2003

0 Uploads

526 Posts

0 Threads

#10 14 years ago

I don't suppose you could give me some examples of CNN being "very much left"? Because I know right wing Americans say it all the time, but I wondered whether they had any actual evidence, like we do for Fox, or whether it's simply been repeated so much that you think it's true.

And some real examples would be great; seeing as, apparently, one of the charges levelled at the BBC by right wing America was that they said "coalition troops" instead of "our troops". If that's considered left wing bias, I think I can see why CNN is seen as borderline-communist! ;)