Understanding The History and Purpose of FOX News

Originally posted by TamaraChristine
The proof of that court case has already been presented for you but here it is again.
HEREYAGO!

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

The day the press died and left us with Picus TV.

Get those damn augs!

I dare you to read the rest of my post...


The bottom line is that Fox lies its ass off.

Whether or not you CARE that Fox lies is another story. I know that people like to be really loyal to their "tribe" due to instincts developed long ago that were favorable adaptations for survival, and in this case that "tribe" is Fox "News." Study on partisanship

Of course, providing scientific evidence to a partisan to explain why they are partisan will be met with ire, I'm sure.

"That's just fancy Darwinist nonsense trying to discredit our patriotic news station."

It becomes like talking to a wall.

Haven't any of you ever wondered WHY you are partisan? Haven't you ever wondered why you feel a slight sense of euphoria when you ignore facts that get in the way of your own opinion. Haven't I considered that the facts in that article most likely point to the very real possibility that a partisan wouldn't have read this far into my post


And here's a larger chunk of the story because apparently people are being really obtuse and ignoring not only the fact that Fox lies, but the incident and case that set the precedent for the total legality of lying.

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.

The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

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. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

I suppose that admitting to yourselves that Fox lies would make you have to reevaluate your entire system of beliefs, because they may be based on nonsense.

Originally posted by Carseller4
FOX News is #1 in cable news because people got tired of being lied to and only receiving the liberal side of things.

Say what you want but ratings don't lie.

American Idol
Two and a Half Men
Hoarders
Things that get great ratings.

Originally posted by TamaraChristine

Originally posted by Carseller4
FOX News is #1 in cable news because people got tired of being lied to and only receiving the liberal side of things.

Say what you want but ratings don't lie.

American Idol
Two and a Half Men
Hoarders
Things that get great ratings.

Your post said volumes more than mine. I really should put a bullet in my skull...

The irony is that anyone watching and enjoying Fox is now saying to themselves, "So what's wrong with 'merican Idol, that show is great. And Two and a half Men is damn good too, but it's a little edgy. I tell you what, that Ashton Kutcher is way funnier than Carroll O'Connor ever was though, cause Archie was just tellin' truth, ain't nothin' all that funny about that."

reply to post by TamaraChristine

Your source misrepresented the facts (lied):

Following Wilson and Akre's contract not being renewed, the two filed a lawsuit concerning WTVT's "news distortion" under Florida's whistleblower laws, claiming their termination was retaliation for "resisting WTVT's attempts to distort or suppress the Monsanto recombinant bovine growth hormone story."[6] In a joint statement, Wilson claimed that he and Akre "were repeatedly ordered to go forward and broadcast demonstrably inaccurate and dishonest versions of the story," and "were given those instructions after some very high-level corporate lobbying by Monsanto (the agriculture company that makes the hormone) and also ... by members of Florida’s dairy and grocery industries."[7] The trial commenced in summer 2000 with a jury dismissing all of the claims brought to trial by Wilson, but siding with one aspect of Akre's complaint, awarding Akre $425000 and agreeing that Akre was a whistleblower because she believed there were violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and because she planned on reporting WTVT to the Federal Communications Commission.

An appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes.[8] ... Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes,[8] Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[6] The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter ... Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute," but noted that the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned.[6]

Source

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by Jenna

If you honestly believe that was the point behind any of my posts then you need to read them again. I haven't been talking about bias, I've been pointing out the blatant hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty required to point fingers at one network while ignoring similar behavior by the rest.

None of the other networks come even close to committing the blatant lies FOX does. I'll give that any news organization can make a mistake with a headline or the occasional typo. But that's not what's going on with FOX - it is creating blatantly misleading headlines and outright fabrications. No one CAN "point fingers" at the other networks because they don't LIE the way FOX does.

This isn't hypocrisy because they're not remotely comparable. Yes, sure all networks have a degree of bias. But at FOX that bias becomes distortions and lies all to play out the Republican agenda and cater to the right-wing paranoiacs and demonizing the left.

You can look at the family that owns News Corp. and see nothing but sleaze, they're being investigated in Britain and Australia for bribery of officials and hacking into people's cell phones and email accounts for dirt. FOX 'News' doesn't stray far from this sort of ethics. Has he hacked American phones as well? That's what one of his former executives charges;

Has Roger Ailes Hacked American Phones for Fox News?

“Has Roger Ailes been keeping tabs on your phone calls?”
 
That’s how Portfolio.com began a post back in 2008, when a former Fox News executive charged that Ailes had outfitted a highly secured “brain room” in Fox’s New York headquarters for “counterintelligence” and may have used it to hack into private phone records.

All this week people have been looking for links between the Murdoch empire’s burgeoning phone-hacking scandal in Britain and News Corp.’s sprawling political/communications juggernaut in the United States. The links so far include a former New York City cop alleging that Murdoch’s now-defunct News of the World offered to pay him to hack into 9/11 victims’ phone records, and a News Corp. US shareholders’ suit in Delaware already targeting the company for nepotism adding British phone hacking as evidence of a corporate culture “run amuck.”

Another tactic employed by FOX to get their propagandist stories out is to have their Murdoch-owned counterparts like the New York Post "leak" a story that is little more than rumor, then have that rumor ran as a full-blown story with a source (the NYPost) as if it were now fact.
Propaganda and Fake News

reply to post by ILikeStars

Yeah buddy... YouTube is a great place to find the truth:
Chemtrails=About 171,000 results
Aliens=About 292,000 results
Nubiru=About 109,000 results
Planet X=About 154,000 results
Obama is an alien=About 39,100 results

I'll take a pass though!

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

ROTFLMAO

Can you say Dan Rather?

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


And what about Dan Rather? Let me guess, the Killian controversy - he was hoodwinked by a source over Bush' absence during his military training when he went AWOL, although it was never officially determined if the papers Rather and CBS News reported on were actually fake or not - that still remains unknown.

Killian documents controversy

The controversy was in how CBS went to air with the material including the whistleblower (Lt. Col. Bill Burkett) without authenticating the documents. The fallout was that Rather RESIGNED from CBS and the story was retracted by CBS with an acknowledgement of what happened.

The Killian documents controversy (also referred to as Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate[1]) involved six documents critical of President George W. Bush's service in the Air National Guard in 1972–73. Four of these documents[2] were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election, but it was later found that CBS had failed to authenticate the documents.

Has that ever happened in any of the instances of false stories reported by FOX - have they EVER retracted a story, apologized, or fired the news person responsible? EVER??

The most hilarious thing about this thread is that by trying to slam Fox News you have only done exactly what makes them popular, but from a more liberal standpoint.

You took freeze frames that were clearly either jokes, or sarcasm, or simply looking at an issue from a differing viewpoint and made it out to look like Fox News is the television version of the national enquirer.

Propaganda? Check

Imagery intentionally used to incite an emotionl response? Check

And the whole idea of ''fox news has never broke a story'' give me a break, I've seen countless stories being broadcast on Fox, while your favorite station MSNBC (the worst news station known to the rating system) was still kicking back slamming Bush for one reason or another. In fact, I've seen several instances where Fox News broke a story before it even happened!!! Look it up

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


I don't agree these things are Republican.

I don't agree these things are propaganda.


I think this is stupid news for stupid people in the republican party.

Good news about stupid: It's a leading cause of death.

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by TamaraChristine

 

Your source misrepresented the facts (lied):

Really now? I would like you to use your own words and explain what exactly about. I got more sources on that story than you have lame excuses. Please do tell. Your little snippet is not very convincing.

Please, PLEASE, tell me that my source lied and tell me what about. I want this bad.

Your source CLAIMS something. My source PROVES something. If you need more sources, I will be happy to give them to you. Why are you now using a lie to argue that FOX is honest? Read your article a few more times. I cannot wait to see you come back with the hard facts. I promise this is going to be entertaining for me.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


I am so glad you brought up the phone hacking scandal as it fits right in with all the confusing ATS/FOX contradictions I see here.

This is the kind of place where you are more likely to find folks that do not like being spied. There are more folks here that do not want the government stepping into their business. There are more people here that value privacy. Roger goes around tapping private citizens phones and he needs to be defended? How can any honest and intelligent ATS member support an organization that uses such big brother tactics?

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013
The most hilarious thing about this thread is that by trying to slam Fox News you have only done exactly what makes them popular, but from a more liberal standpoint.

Your entire post is complete and utter BS. Crack is popular. Must be good.

You took freeze frames that were clearly either jokes, or sarcasm, or simply looking at an issue from a differing viewpoint and made it out to look like Fox News is the television version of the national enquirer.

None of what you just said is true. You are going to have to demonstrate how what you claim has been done in this thread because it looks like you are just making it up.

Propaganda? Check

Imagery intentionally used to incite an emotionl response? Check

You are just saying things. You are not actually using reality or backing it up.

And the whole idea of ''fox news has never broke a story'' give me a break, I've seen countless stories being broadcast on Fox, while your favorite station MSNBC (the worst news station known to the rating system) was still kicking back slamming Bush for one reason or another. In fact, I've seen several instances where Fox News broke a story before it even happened!!! Look it up

edit on 30-11-2011 by WhiteDevil013 because: (no reason given)

And all the examples that have been asked for are.....?
Last post I saw said "What stories have they broken." Your response -"A bunch, I swear!"

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013
The most hilarious thing about this thread is that by trying to slam Fox News you have only done exactly what makes them popular, but from a more liberal standpoint.

You took freeze frames that were clearly either jokes, or sarcasm, or simply looking at an issue from a differing viewpoint and made it out to look like Fox News is the television version of the national enquirer.

Propaganda? Check

Imagery intentionally used to incite an emotionl response? Check

I agree with everything you said, completely. Most particularly this part, which I couldn't have said better myself:

You took freeze frames that were clearly either jokes, or sarcasm, or simply looking at an issue from a differing viewpoint and made it out to look like Fox News is the television version of the national enquirer.

I am leaving this thread because continuing to try to answer the comments put forth here are as fun as banging my head against a wall or trying to argue with a toddler.

I took a clip that was presented as "proof" that Fox lied and analyzed it completely, showing why it was most definitely NOT a lie or misrepresentation.

It is clear that no one has budged from their original positions one iota. So all of you can go on repeating your mantra that Fox lies, and you can believe it all you want, and I don't care. It's not worth my energy. I actually have better things to do than worry about your mistaken opinions.

Actually Fox News is easily the most fair and balanced of the US media - which is why the progressive media establishment (whose job is to shape your views into progressive voters) cannot stand it, especially since they are seeing the public switch off from them in droves, whilst Fox goes from strength to strength.

This post is nothing but the usual leftist (politics is war) desire to eliminate any dissenting voices, they have a diifficult enough mission as it is to trick people into voting against their best interest, without heaven forbid, a real news channel pointing out their deceptions.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


See you are wrong.
I'm tired of fool statements.
Fox News leads the charge in silencing Ron Paul. He is not leftist. It is not like Fox news is right leaning and are happy as long as it is someone from the right, but they actually want to pick the President and they want it to be an Idiot.

Fox News lies, They manipulate America via the American people. News should present only the facts and let the people decide. They need to come down.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Foxs ratings are higher at 3am ... compared to MSNBC at 9pm ..

reply to post by LeoStarchild


So.. what? Fox news viewers are more likely to be laid off of work?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


XD butt hurt.

I don't have cable myself... but

When i do get a chance to watch a little Fox, I like to switch between them and the MSM.

I find that the other stations nearly every time... with consistency, are always talking about republicans, the tea party and anyone and everyone with opposition to the grand poobah Obama.

And yes Fox is biased... but its 6 v 1

reply to post by LeoStarchild


Eh.. I don't think so. More like MSNBC v.s. FOX.
At least the only 24 hours news networks I know of are MSNBC, CNN, FOX, and there may be one more.
I would say MSNBC is the only one that has a true leftist agenda, but it isn't the hateful agenda with hatefilled pundits like FOX.

What do you mean switch between FOX and MSM? FOX is the MSM.

Even if your ratio was correct and it was 6 to 1, in those 6 channels you wont fine one pundit acting like Hannity or Oreilly.

Also, FOX news has a bigger audience than those so they don't need to keep up or anything.