Fox News Omits Crucial Statement In Discussion About A United Nations "Global Tax"

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Link to article and fox video

On the September 29 edition of Fox News' Bulls and Bears, host Brenda Buttner and fellow Fox News contributors persisted in fear-mongering about a United Nations proposal for implementation of a "global tax" and failed to report on a statement from the U.S. Mission to the U.N. that threw cold water on the claim.




Buttner argued to a panel of Fox News contributors that the U.N. global tax proposal "could happen, couldn't it?" She was referring to a FoxNews.com report on the United Nations, which summarized the tax proposal as the following:


A 1 percent tax on billionaires around the world. A tax on all currency trading in the U.S. dollar, the euro, the Japanese yen and the British pound sterling. Another "tiny" tax on all financial transactions, including stock and bond trading, and trading in financial derivatives. New taxes on carbon emissions and on airline tickets. A royalty on all undersea mineral resources extracted more than 100 miles offshore of any nation's territory.


Just love their reporting style “well it could happen couldn’t it?” They are supposed to know that before they broadcast but it doesn’t make good TV.



Approximately 24 hours after this story was published, a spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations sent the following "unsolicited statement" to Fox News:


The United States opposes global taxes because we believe that any source of revenue should remain under the control of national authorities. This is an idea that has been kicked around for years. Fortunately, it hasn't gone anywhere, nor will it.
There is the answer and it is no it will not.


In fact, Fox News reported a similar story over a decade ago, but the host of Bulls and Bears Brenda Buttner, nor her panel -- consisting of Gary B. Smith, Stephane Fitch, Kyle Harrington, Jonas Max Ferris, and Tobin Smith -- presented the facts of the global tax initiative.

Instead of acknowledging the statement or the tax proposal's impotent history, Buttner's panel - consisting of Gary B. Smith, Stephane Fitch, Kyle Harrington, Jonas Max Ferris, and Tobin Smith -- largely
buttressed Buttner's fear-mongering about global taxes. Only Fitch questioned the necessity of the segment, arguing that "it's not going to happen," in part because "the U.N. has no taxing authority."



So here is another example of Fox news fear mongering and misrepresentation of the facts. There should be a way to penalize this type of irresponsible reporting. At the very least there should be an award handed out to the news organization for doing the worst job. A reverse Peabody of sorts.




posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
So basically you want to take away our first amendment rights.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by phroziac
So basically you want to take away our first amendment rights.


So, lying and deliberately representing those lies as truth to a wide audience in order to stir up trouble is protected under the first amendment now?

Interesting.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by phroziac
So basically you want to take away our first amendment rights.


First amendment rights should be for people not companies. When they are on the job they should only give an accurate telling of the news not their made up version of it.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by phroziac
So basically you want to take away our first amendment rights.


I never said anything about taking away rights.

BTW Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not covered as a right to free speech when there is no fire.

I think they should get an award for being the crappiest least informed show on the air.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
If someone is going to believe everything they hear on the news, any news channel.
Then they deserve to be lied to.

The 1st amendment applies to the people speaking the news. So yes they are protected, as much as we may not like it.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


As a pro-print journalist, I can tell you that the first amendment doesn't apply to me. I can't just go around and report any nonsense I want without verifiable facts. There are things called libel laws, obviously, they are focused mostly on people or corporations I might slander in a news story. Heck, i am subject to the libel laws even in opinion pieces, in that I can't just run around and say someone is x, y, or z, without some kind of backup argument. So, while what she is doing is unethical, it is unfortunately not illegal. But I have been saying that for years about fox noise, to my own family members and friends mostly. The right-wingers among them refuse to listen to me, naturally, and I have actually strained my relationship with my father over it. I find it insulting though that he refuses to listen to me saying I don't know what I am talking about, to that I always say, so it's ok to get tax advice from a zoo keeper?



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkKnight76
reply to post by watchitburn
 


But I have been saying that for years about fox noise, to my own family members and friends mostly. The right-wingers among them refuse to listen to me,


The left does it as well. I can only look at a few of these so called journalists, and think that they are a journalist.

I would say that 99% are nothing more than talking heads, and that includes the print guys as well. Nothing more than 24/7 opinionated fluff. On both sides.

Blogs are breaking more news nowadays than any news organization.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Your answer says to me, "If I don't like what is being reported, it must be due to a biased journalist." And that's the problem today, people don't want the truth or the facts, they want info and facts that back up their own bias, and if they don't get that, it's the journalists fault for being a "paid democratic shill," and not a reason to examine your own beliefs, biases or prejudices.

Blogs? You mean how I can start a blog and say whatever I want, whether true or not, and report it as fact? It's really hard to sue a blogger for libel, a journalist at a local newspaper however, has a much larger burden to bear in that department. There are things called standards we reporters and editors have (whether you believe it or not), and if you really think we go out of our way to report only the things that would confirm to our own bias, then you have no clue how professional journalism works, sorry.

And print guys aren't talking heads, they actually have to do the work to get the story. TV news, on the other hand, is much different. They read what's handed to them.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I decided to take a look at the video. It's not a news report, there are no lies there. It's five guys offering different opinions on the UN's proposal for global taxes.

Certainly, the White House says they won't let the UN tax us for other countries use, but do we believe everything the White House says? What would be the reaction if, before the elections, the White House said "We'll let the UN tax American citizens?

It seemed like it was only opinions, on an opinion segment, about what would happen "if." I don't see the scandal. But I'm certainly willing to think about it if one is presented.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


While I agree it wasn’t the news segment the argument can be made that a vast majority of Fox viewers do not discriminate between the two and it can be said that is their own fault however Fox does nothing to differentiate the two for their viewers and their lies the problem. It is my belief they had the correct information before broadcasting but purposely misled there viewers either for ratings or some other agenda hiding behind the shield of ignorance established with reasoning that show was not the factual side of fox.

Any way you look at it I would call this dishonest possibly dangerous and definitely irresponsible.





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join