posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:30 AM
This video demonstrates more the editor's own bias and closed-mindedness than it does that of Fox News. He uses very selective-editing, defends
known hoaxers and is offended by the mere inclusion of skeptics. Let's look at it bit-by-bit, shall we?
The first clip is with Jeff Peckman. If there is anyone in the UFO field deserving of mockery and derision, it's Peckman. Considering how
ill-regarded Peckman is in the UFO community, one cannot blame Smith if he presented some bias in the interview.
The second clip is from Heartland with John Kasich, a political commentary show. The host giving his opinion on an opinion show should not surprise
anyone, and can hardly be taken as an example of biased reporting.
The third clip is supposed to be an example of Fox interviewers, as the title-card put it, "interrupting them, preventing them from getting their
point across." However, the clip is so short to tell why the speaker was being interrupted; it could be that the segment was ending, or the host was
trying to move on to another speaker. Such things are common in cable news reporting, no matter the subject. And the clip is from Heartland;
again, no one should be surprised an opinion show forwards an opinion.
The fourth clip is Peckman, again. See above. If this is supposed to be an example of the host interrupting so someone cannot make a point, it is a
poor one; the host interrupts to ask a question. Peckman: "it's under agreement..." Smith: "Agreement with who..." Peckman: "...it make a
The fifth clip, again from Heartland. All Kasich says is "okay" and "alright," before moving on to the next speaker.
Sixth clip, Peckman. "Friday fun house" is an accurate description of Peckman's antics. The fact this video takes him seriously, attempting to
make him a martyr of media bias, speaks volumes about the editor's own judgment and bias.
In a segment that is supposed to show Fox "blatantly siding with skeptics," clips seven and eight are just skeptics speaking; it seems to the editor
allowing skeptics to speak at all is an example of bias.
Clip nine is again from the Heartland show. The host says, "Good point, good point" to Bill Nye. However, we have no idea what he was saying good
Clip ten is a variety of UFO videos, the first being a hoax from Mexico City, with the host mentioning the official explanation. However, the clip is
so short we do not know what else she discussed. Much like the above example with the skeptics, to the editor, any mention of an explanation outside
of alien craft is an example of bias.
Clip eleven is Stan Romanek, Jeff Peckman's cohort in the Denver alien video. Romanek is every bit as deserving of mockery and derision as Peckman.
And again, the editor shows very poor judgment in who he tries to make a martyr.
Clip twelve is another skeptic and another example of how the editor thinks allowing a skeptic on is biased and unfair.
In what is supposed to be an example of a "mocking or...facetious" question, the host asks a what amounts to a "signal from noise" question, in
clip fourteen. I suppose asking any question of a believer is bias.
Romanek again in clip fifteen (and mentioned in thirteen). This is ridiculous...
Fun at Romanek's expense in clip sixteen. Yes, they are mocking him and Peckman in this clips, but they are deserving of the mockery.
In clip seventeen, is what is supposed to be an example of a "mocking of...facetious" question, the host asks Peckman a very serious question, "Why
aren't we allowed to see the video?" Again, to the editor, any questioning of believers is unfair and biased...
Clip eighteen...related to Peckman, again. See above...
Clip nineteen is a skeptic speaking. How dare Fox allow them on!
Clip twenty is not from Fox News, but a Fox affiliate. Clip twenty-one is just Bill Nye saying "could be military." In both cases, the editor
accuses Fox News of just making up an explanation, when indeed some UFO sightings are of military craft. I find the use of the word "unproven"
rather funny, considering the editor's own beliefs...
Next are a variety of clips of what the editor claims is Fox showing crazy witnesses to invalidate the UFO community as a whole. However, the clips
are far too short to say whether this is what is happening or not.
Then the editor defends Romanek and Peckman, attacking Fox for putting quotations around "space alien" and "ET," in relation to their video of a
supposed alien. In fact, Fox was right to do this, as even most in the UFO community consider this to be a hoax. In the same segment, the editor
attacks Fox for stating the facts; most UFO sightings can be explained, only the most closed-minded believer will not acknowledge this.