I wish I had collected all of the little tidbits I’ve seen over the years, because they’d number in the hundreds.
Opinions obviously shine through on Fox, but Fox isn’t exactly unique in this respect, and those opinions often match the the beliefs of a lot of the people on this board.
What’s far worse is the outright dishonesty or misinformation–statements or content published on Fox’s airwaves, either by newsmen, pundits, or contributors, that are objectively and demonstrably false or misleading. Photograph manipulation–if you look it up I’m sure you can find what I’m talking about. Always chalked up to “editing errors,” as if some photo editor accidentally loaded a JPG in photoshop and turned the teeth neon yellow. There was some controversy over footage wrongly attributed to a tea party rally or Glenn Beck thing in order to make it seem much bigger than it actually was. The $200 million/day Obama India trip nonsense was fantastic–it was like opera-lying.
Here’s my favorite Fox takedown of all time. I suspect a lot of people around here don’t like Colbert, but if you don’t laugh at this one, you don’t have a sense of humor:
Just FYI, all the big names in news have been caught editing picks in a manipulative and dishonest way. The likes of CNN, ABC, NBC est included.[/quote]
I’ve seen it done before on MSNBC and CNN, but not like this picture here.
It’s my impression that Fox has done it more frequently and far more egregiously. If this photograph has an analog on another network, I’d be interested to see it.
Anyways, it’s the factual misses–the India trip, for example–that are most dishonest/disgusting.[/quote]
Reuters has been busted for tons of times. Digitally adding smoke. Using images from alternate locations/events. Adding missiles to Israeli planes. Cropping out weapons from “peaceful” protestors hands. You name it. (that’s just off the top of my head)
What you posted looks kinda like what CNN and the others did to Zimmerman.[/quote]
How is this shit acceptable from any news organization. Crap. [/quote]
Um, because it makes them money… since people will still watch/read it.
99% of the stuff on the news doesn’t affect 99% of the people. The people it really matters to, well, they’re usually either on site, or have great intel and don’t rely on the news anyway.
“The news” is entertainment and a profit center. Nothing more.
If you want to know what’s actually happening, do your own research.[/quote]
If you doctor a photo and pass it off as news, that’s not entertainment, that’s fraud. And the news might not be trustworthy anymore, and there might not be anything we can do about it, but that doesn’t make it less outrageous. [/quote]
If you watch or read the news and interpret it as fact… that’s on you, not them.
Their job is not to report facts. They want you to think that’s their job. Their job is to sell advertising views. If that means selectively editing material, or prioritizing articles, or other “fraudulent” activities, in order to make money and keep their entire infrastructure profitable, then that’s what it takes.
I’m not saying I like it. I’d love to get news on the level of intelligence analyst briefings, where people go to prison if they lie. But that’s not what we have.
Instead, we have an industry that thrives on profit through advertising dollars, while doing what’s necessary to maintain their viewership. If that means they need to parade themselves as being fair and balanced, or any other sort of virtuistic imagery, then that’s what they do.
Only outright libel and slander is illegal. Everything else is fair game.