SD on 27/6/2009 at 17:13

---

Fox News is especially good at it. They have turned dishonesty into an artform.

Take lying hypocritical sack of shit, Republican Governor Mark Sanford, for example. Voted to impeach Clinton over Lewinsky, never far from the lynch mob whenever a political opponent is revealed as a philanderer. Caught this week having an affair himself.

Fox News covered it, of course. Spot the deliberate mistake:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/DannyClein/ReligioTardery/Faux001.jpg


They have form for this though. When Republican Congressman and all-round anti-gay bigot Mark Foley was caught out pestering teenage boys for sex, this was Fox's take:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/DannyClein/ReligioTardery/Faux002.jpg

These are not isolated cases.

AR Master on 27/6/2009 at 17:51

---

FOX NEWS? MORE LIKE FAUX NEWS HEH *watches msnbc*

Deathologist on 27/6/2009 at 18:44

---

News flash all the "news" on T.V. lies. Or puts spin on the storys. This is not new, CNN, FOx, and MSNBC have always done this. There is no politically focused fair and balanced news.

Paz on 27/6/2009 at 19:18

---

Defaulting to 'man it's all the same' is a bit easy, and shows a certain lack of understanding about where news comes from and how it (like babby) is formed.

More than half the stuff which becomes A STORY on the tv or in the papers starts life at one of the local or global wire services that all news services now use. In the case of global news there are two main ones - the Associated Press and Reuters. Neither the global or local wire services really put a 'spin' on anything, as such, because they don't need to. Their staffing and offices have been cut back so much and they're so overworked that they will accept almost any press release that comes their way (which includes thousands of PR press releases and stuff from lobbying groups etc). A lack of court reporters means they will rely on a police press agent. A lack of parliamentary reporters (in the case of the UK) means they rely on the government press agent. You can imagine what version of events you get from those sources.

The newsrooms then take the AP/Reuters/Whatever news and type it up as their own. They may use a weaselly byline like 'by our sports staff' or make up a name when really they've just taken it from the wire service (as the Daily Telegraph do with 100% of their cricket reports), or they might be more honest and put the AP. As with the wire agencies, journalists at most media type places have been massively cut back and the number of stories they're expected to 'produce' has increased. Therefore, there isn't a whole lot of checking that goes on. They may add some neutrality by getting a rent-a-quote from an opposing viewpoint - but this merely gives the illusion of neutrality. In effect it gives both 'sides' equal weight, even when there is absolutely no equivalence. Essentially though, you probably just get that original police press release re-arranged, typed up and put out as news.

But surely this means all news is equally as poor etc etc and my lazy view was right all along hah! ...

Well, sort of. I think errors are less to do with malicious lies (although Fox have poor form in this area and shouldn't be able to hide behind 'they're all the same anyway') and more often to do with lack of time, lack of knowledge and huge cutbacks in the system and network of gathering news. If the AP don't have a bureau in the Congo, how much news do you think we'll be getting from there? Like everything, it's complex as hell and can't be explained with a catch-all theory.

However! There are still a few journos who get enough time and have free enough reign to do some proper, superb reporting. They're not all dead yet. Between the fluff pieces and the filler, investigative reporting still exists.

Yes absolutely, every story has an angle. The angle appears the moment they sit down and think 'hm yes I'd like to do a story about poverty' - that's already an angle of sorts. An angle doesn't have to compete with the truth unless the reporter wants it to.

Here's a pretty good piece which deals with all of this: (http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2009/05/08/mail-editors-claim-that-paper-doesnt-regurgitate-press-releases-contradicted-by-reality/)

The Mail/Express get a press release from MigrationWatch. They know what will sell to their readers ('immigrants are leeches') so that is what they give them. No effort necessary on behalf of the writer - who probably has another ten stories to do that day. What's quite interesting is that back in the 80s the Mail were very supportive of immigrants, especially those from Eastern Europe; because in those days they were fleeing from the Soviet Union so they were 'good' immigrants.

Starrfall on 27/6/2009 at 19:41

---

lol whats perjuries precious