Fox News Channel is the "News of Record"

[Moontanman]

Too bad she isn't bitter like me. I'd love to read that she told them to go pound sand in their ass; that she won't work for people that won't at least stand up for her until the facts come out. There was no reason for her to have to resign so quickly - that was crap. Seriously, I read the something similar - it was the second phone call. That's as spineless as it gets. And she showed a peculiar form of class to comply too.

 

But as was said earlier...Fox news didn't fire her. And from what I gather, they didn't fan any flames either.

 

 

I have to agree, that was a totally spineless thing to do, I would move to another planet and avoid this crap totally but the ticket price is bit steep

[navigator]

Too bad she isn't bitter like me. I'd love to read that she told them to go pound sand in their ass; that she won't work for people that won't at least stand up for her until the facts come out. There was no reason for her to have to resign so quickly - that was crap. Seriously, I read something similar - like the second phone call. That's awfully spineless. And she showed a peculiar form of class to comply too.

 

But as was said earlier...Fox news didn't fire her. And from what I gather, they didn't fan any flames either.

 

I think telling them to push rope would be better recieved although there are more layers to that story..

 

I did find it interesting listening to some media try to vilify Fox over her firing and how the NAACP was 'snookered', while ignoring the fact that she was fired hours before the video was even aired. There are so many angles to this story but its off topic so I will just end by saying, either Fox has that much credibility or the administration is piling on more incompetence.

[Skye]

That's a great question, thanks for bringing it up. I don't know the answer, but it may be relevant to note that The Guardian (do I have that right?) and other conservative outlets in the UK are taken seriously overseas.

The Guardian is a left wing paper. The Times (now owned by News Corp) is traditionally conservative though. It is well respected and is considered a newspaper of record for the UK.

 

I think that news of record generally implies an excellent reputation, because the term newspapers of record originates from the use of certain newspapers as the medium through which public notices, such as product recalls or retractions of libel, were distributed, and that these were typically distinguished high brow broadsheets like the Times, the NYT and La Monde. These papers have a bias, certainly, but are still usually respected across ideological lines for good reporting. I don't think this is the case with the Fox News Channel. The same ideologically people who dislike the Times or the WSJ will of course dislike FNC, but I think FNC gets little respect from moderates, or even many conservatives.

[Pangloss]

I have to correct something I posted last night: Sherrod had not yet been forced to resign when Fox News first went on the air with the video. Apparently that happened the next day. I've amended my earlier post.

 

 

Possibly the entire problem revolves around what liberal and conservatives really stand for. Liberals try to change the rules to fit reality, conservatives try to change reality to fit the rules

 

Applying objective standards to ideological preferences is generally ill-advised. Liberal examples of "changing reality to fit the rules" arguably include the standard progressive positions on abortion, gun control, and immigration.

 

But that sort of reasoning does seem quite common in the science community, and I believe it drives science community political positioning in much the same way that soccer moms, church-goers, and other human communities influence their members by appealing to their common sensibilities and motivations.

 

 

i for one of course check anything I hear from Fox like it came from the American Association of crazy people.... give me reason to stay on top of the BS I'm being fed...

 

Lol! Well, you do seem to be at least affirming my long-held suspicion that Fox News Channel is far more popular with liberals than conservatives, who surely prefer MSNBC. It's all about the drama. ;-)

 

 

Obviously you do not live in the southern USA or know many religious fundilmentalists... even the local Catholics are into the whole creationist thing...

 

Oooooo, nooooo, you'll want to re-think that assumption. I grew up in Georgia, and most of my family (and my wife's family) is ultra-conservative. I have a close cousin who used to be a secretary for a higher-up in Focus on the Family -- the very heart of the fundamentalist movement -- and talking to her (or any of her sisters or her parents) is like a schoolhouse lesson on doggedly-determined fundamentalist thinking. (I cringe every time I log in to my Facebook wall, because I know it's going to be filled with anti-Obama nonsense, but I know better than to argue -- family is far more important than politics!)

 

 

The Guardian is a left wing paper. The Times (now owned by News Corp) is traditionally conservative though. It is well respected and is considered a newspaper of record for the UK.

 

Thanks Skye, I never can keep that straight.

 

 

I think that news of record generally implies an excellent reputation, because the term newspapers of record originates from the use of certain newspapers as the medium through which public notices, such as product recalls or retractions of libel, were distributed, and that these were typically distinguished high brow broadsheets like the Times, the NYT and La Monde. These papers have a bias, certainly, but are still usually respected across ideological lines for good reporting. I don't think this is the case with the Fox News Channel. The same ideologically people who dislike the Times or the WSJ will of course dislike FNC, but I think FNC gets little respect from moderates, or even many conservatives.

 

Fair enough, but how is reputation determined? What is "good reporting", and how is it different from the points I made above?

 

And I'm not sure I agree with that last bit -- is there any evidence of this lack of respect amongst moderates and conservatives?

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't like Fox News, nor most other news organizations for that matter. Fox News does however provide several valuable services:

1) Their extreme bias means that they will report certain stories that other networks would not, either due to their being less important or biased in the wrong direction, or both. So more news is reported.

2) In addition to point 1, their presence helps other news organizations remain more balanced, so that they are not shamed by Fox reporting a story they didn't.

3) Their blatant lies help people to realize that not everything you hear on TV is true.

 

As for point 3, here are some of the folks who keep track of the lies and misdirections:

http://www.newshounds.us/

http://foxnewsboycott.com/tag/lies/

 

And Fox News even went to court to support their ability to tell lies as if they were news (includes, of course, more lies by Fox):

http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

[Pangloss]

Objective sources are required for such determinations, not ones which have a predetermined agenda.

[Moontanman]

Objective sources are required for such determinations, not ones which have a predetermined agenda.

 

 

Well then, this whole discussion is moot because evidently there is no such thing as an unbiased or objective source of information

[Pangloss]

Nor is the New York Times the "news of record" in any official capacity, Moon.

 

I presented several points which may or may not be usable for determining either "legitimacy" or "news of record" status. Whether that evidence is accepted by a reader or not is up to them. What I was looking for is a discussion on the accuracy of those means of measure.

[Moontanman]

Nor is the New York Times the "news of record" in any official capacity, Moon.

 

I presented several points which may or may not be usable for determining either "legitimacy" or "news of record" status. Whether that evidence is accepted by a reader or not is up to them. What I was looking for is a discussion on the accuracy of those means of measure.

 

 

I wasn't kidding, how do you find an unbiased source of information? You? Me? Who is truly objective?

 

I don't trust anyone but me and you and lately I've began to wonder about you...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Nor is the New York Times the "news of record" in any official capacity, Moon.

Then nor can Fox be. What's your point?

 

I presented several points which may or may not be usable for determining either "legitimacy" or "news of record" status. Whether that evidence is accepted by a reader or not is up to them. What I was looking for is a discussion on the accuracy of those means of measure.

I'd agree with Wikipedia on the criteria:

 

Newspaper of record is a term that may refer either to any publicly available newspaper that has been authorized by a government to publish public or legal notices (often known as a newspaper of public record), or any major newspaper that has a large circulation and whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered professional and typically authoritative.

 

The New York Times has a reputation as a newspaper of record because it is considered authoritative; that is, if the Times said it happened, it probably did. The trouble with Fox is that their accuracy is often called into question.

 

I don't think the criteria you listed in your first post are what are required to become a news source of record; rather, they're characteristics that sources already established as such have.

 

For example, tabloids like The Daily Mail meet all three of your criteria, but they are often sensationalist, inaccurate, or focused entirely on celebrity gossip. They may get exclusive interviews with celebrities, break new stories (e.g. the John Edwards scandal), and follow the same format as other news sources, but nobody considers them sources of record. If their articles were more consistently accurate, less sensationalist, and focused more on major world events rather than minor celebrity events, they may become sources of record.

[ParanoiA]

I wasn't kidding, how do you find an unbiased source of information? You? Me? Who is truly objective?

 

At the risk of further missing the point of the thread...there is no unbiased source of information. There never was.

 

It's impossible for the human mind to be truly objective. As an old forum poster used to say, we are isolated subjects in an objective world. It's a sliding scale with spongy calibration. What is objective to you, is blatantly subjective to me.

 

 

And that's not the measure for "news of record". We've always had some sort of "news of record", and they've always been biased. Further, they've always had an agenda. Who doesn't? Bias doesn't have anything to do with the ability to be the "news of record".

[jackson33]

The NY Times is the "News of Record" for other liberal media, has been for a long time and remains so today. I recall many years ago the News of Record, or the SOURCE, for the Paul Harvey Report, was the USA Today and a good many right wing media today used the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh and FNC. P, has it correct.

 

Skeptic; If you view or listen to something, expecting to hear unreported items, keeps other media from straying too far, implying exaggerating/embellishing, how can that be a bad review.

 

As for your third point; I went over about 50 so called misrepresentations of facts. If you would please pick a couple, that were on FOX NEWS PROGRAMMING, opposed to opinion shows or from quest and I'll be happy to respond, even if you find one.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And that's not the measure for "news of record". We've always had some sort of "news of record", and they've always been biased. Further, they've always had an agenda. Who doesn't? Bias doesn't have anything to do with the ability to be the "news of record".

Of course. But I think there's a big difference between bias in what you report -- say, the Times neglecting to report something negative about someone they like -- and bias in the facts you make up. A tabloid often contains rumors, but a news source "of record" at least tries to tell the truth, even when it's only the truth that supports their position.

[ParanoiA]

Of course. But I think there's a big difference between bias in what you report -- say, the Times neglecting to report something negative about someone they like -- and bias in the facts you make up. A tabloid often contains rumors, but a news source "of record" at least tries to tell the truth, even when it's only the truth that supports their position.

 

Actually, it sounds like you're driving a wedge between bias and lying. If facts are made up, then they're lies. And I would think that would affect the "news of record". And I thought the points you made above were well done. I was curiously waiting for Pangloss to respond because I'm very interested and attracted to his logic on this, but despite all appearances I'm learning more than I'm contributing here.

[Realitycheck]

So lying like a rug when it boosts ratings isn't problem? A bias is one thing but Fox has been caught up in outright lies many times, supporting ones bias with lies is hardly what i would call news, it's more like... politics....

 

I was wondering why Obama said, "Fox is not really a news organization." This sounds like a good reason why. I have to agree. This is a line that just isn't supposed to be crossed, making their own news out of fiction.

 

Check out this fact-checking site I found, just for Fox! "We watch FOX so you don't have to." http://www.newshounds.us/

 

Rick Sanchez rips Fox News' coverage of Sherrod video: "Most news organizations do have rules and standards about stuff like this"

 

"There was a strong partisan split among those who said they trusted Fox — with 74 percent of Republicans saying they trusted the network, while only 30 percent of Democrats said they did." back in January

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html#ixzz0uRzOdZHw

 

Here is a big collection of biased misrepresentations and outright lies reported by Fox. Such as, "On February 22, Wallace claimed that Attorney General Eric Holder "got into office by the skin of his teeth." However, Holder was confirmed by the Senate in a 75-21 vote, and the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 17-2 in favor of reporting his nomination to the full Senate."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130047

 

I have always been a fan of CNN. Fox always seemed to be more of an entertainment channel, and that is quite obviously the case!

[DJBruce]

 

Here is a big collection of biased misrepresentations and outright lies reported by Fox. Such as, "On February 22, Wallace claimed that Attorney General Eric Holder "got into office by the skin of his teeth." However, Holder was confirmed by the Senate in a 75-21 vote, and the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 17-2 in favor of reporting his nomination to the full Senate."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130047

 

 

The phrase, "skin of his teeth" is completely subjective, and to some maybe 75-21 is a close margin. So you cannot say that Wallace lied or even misrepresented since you cannot accurately objectively define "skin of his teeth". Also personally I am not a fan of citing media matters to show Fox News bias since they themselves are exceptionally biased. I mean in they were created with donations from numerous left leaning organizations and people like MoveOn.org and New Democrat Network, and by there own mission statement only are concerned with the misinformation of conservative news networks.

 

I personally rely on Fox for most of my news, and find it accurate, and comprehensive. That being said I would have to agree with your points Pangloss and say Fox is the News of Record.

[ParanoiA]

Check out this fact-checking site I found, just for Fox! "We watch FOX so you don't have to." http://www.newshounds.us/

 

Well there goes that. That's not a fact checking site unless you think "fact checking" means someone else's interpretation of political events. Rachell Maddow pretends Jessie Helms was fighting against the Racial Quota Law because a black man took a white man's job - despite the repeated appeals in the very ad she's fraudulently misrepresenting that states he's fighting against the notion of a quota based on race. It merely stars a white man - but I guess that's "fact checking"?

 

That's not fact checking, that's their political view and rhetorical puke. People read and watch that crap and believe it. And you're pointing fingers at Fox news?

 

This is a line that just isn't supposed to be crossed, making their own news out of fiction

.

 

I agree. Rachael Maddog and CNN, or whatever corporate information business she's paid by, should be ashamed of themselves for the fictional racism she's peddling. Imagine how many people are duped by this garbage.

 

I didn't even get to the second link...

 

Here's an actual fact checking site.... www.factcheck.org

Edited July 22, 2010 by ParanoiA

[Mr Skeptic]

Objective sources are required for such determinations, not ones which have a predetermined agenda.

 

I thought your main point was that biased news organizations can still be of use. I can understand you not taking what they say at face value, but I certainly doubt its all lies. Like with Fox, I'm sure at least some of what they say is true. ;-)

 

I think Cap'n has the right idea. The first definition for newspaper of record is, essentially, that the government considers publication in them to satisfy requirements for public notice. However, I think it was the second aspect that most people were thinking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record

Newspapers of record (by reputation)

 

The second type of "newspaper of record" is not defined by any formal criteria. The use of the term implies that a newspaper is a reliable institution that publishes trustworthy descriptions of events, but this assessment may be disputed. Major newspapers of record may be expected to have independent editorial policies, and to publish statements of opinion that are distinct from those of their proprietor or their government. They are more likely than other newspapers to be sold abroad and to be cited in scholarly publications.

Excessive bias would seem to disqualify from this definition.

[Pangloss]

But again, that stops the New York Times and CNN from being legitimate as well. Which is not something you all wish to consider -- you seem to agree that bias makes FNC illegitimate, but think that it doesn't make CNN or other outlets illegitimate. Surely you must agree that the NYT and CNN don't always get it right, but no evidence has been presented that they're wrong less often, or are less biased. Where is the evidence?

 

If you are going to use an objective standard like that, why doesn't it apply equally to all outlets?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Are we talking about "legitimate" or of news sources "of record"? And which criteria does the NYT not meet?

[Pangloss]

Are we talking about "legitimate" or of news sources "of record"? And which criteria does the NYT not meet?

 

You tell me -- if it's one or more of y'all's supposition that bias removes legitimacy, then let's see the evidence, and the reason why it doesn't apply to other outlets. You'll need to establish an objective unit of bias measurement and a comprehensive study of why it applies to FNC and not other outlets, so a great deal of data will be required.

 

Otherwise you'll have to admit that the comparison cannot be made and that therefore FNC cannot (objectively) be declared illegitimate on that basis.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I didn't think I was talking about "legitimacy." We've been talking about what makes a news source of record, not what makes a "legitimate" news source, whatever that means.

[Pangloss]

I didn't think I was talking about "legitimacy." We've been talking about what makes a news source of record, not what makes a "legitimate" news source, whatever that means.

 

Well, if we can determine that a news source is (or is not) "news of record" on a subjective basis like "sensationalism", then why can't we also determine whether or not it is "legitimate"?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Why does it matter? The point of this thread is whether Fox is a news source "of record." The legitimacy of Fox in general should be discussed elsewhere.

[Mr Skeptic]

The second type of "newspaper of record" is not defined by any formal criteria. The use of the term implies that a newspaper is a reliable institution that publishes trustworthy descriptions of events, but this assessment may be disputed. Major newspapers of record may be expected to have independent editorial policies, and to publish statements of opinion that are distinct from those of their proprietor or their government. They are more likely than other newspapers to be sold abroad and to be cited in scholarly publications.

 

Well, to fit that second definition requires a good reputation, something that is achieved via subjective means. Also, note that I did not say "bias" I said "excessive bias", and no, I did not qualify that. It is subjective, and rather complicated to try to measure. Some more objective measures from the wiki's description:

1) Does Fox publish a trustworthy description of events?

2) Does Fox have independent editorial policies?

3) Does Fox publish statements of opinion that are distinct from those of their proprietor?

4) Is it sold abroad?

5) Is it cited in scholarly publications?

(The above are not intended as strict yes/no questions, but as a sort of measure)

 

6)I think another good measure would be whether people with the opposite bias as the publication still consider the facts depicted by it to be reliable. If people who don't like it still believe it, that's a very good sign.