I find it kinda ironic that for all the stuff that FOX News has done to promote bad journalism and propoganda...
Would you care to explain that rather sweeping statement? I am not a cheerleader for the right nor for Fox News but to assert, as you do, in a careless manner that Fox News promotes bad journalism and propaganda is irresponsible. Any perceived or actual bias or propaganda on Fox News is comparable to the more liberal and equally myopic positions broadcast on CNN and MSNBC and on ABC, CBS and NBC. As for bad journalism, I would direct you towards the coverage of the Supreme Court's ruling on healthcare. The last time that I checked all of the mainstream media outlets, with the exception of CBS, reported erroneously that the Court had invalidated the legislation. If you are looking for bad journalism then you really should widen the scope of your inquiry.
I watched it live, and although Shep Smith made a fully sincere and dignified apology afterwards, it begs the question, why was the national broadcaster airing a car chase in the first place? You'd have thought these things would be more suited to local affiliates, not beamed across the world for millions to potentially witness. I think more and better safeguards need to be put in place, it's not as if it was before the watershed in the UK - it was lunchtime in Midwest USA.
Firstly, Fox News is a cable and satellite news channel. It is widely available throughout the US but there are some markets in which it is not available. This is because some cable and satellite operators have not agreed carriage terms with Fox News and its parent, News Corporation.
Secondly, Fox News is not 'the national broadcaster' (as you state). The national broadcaster - or at least a broadcaster that is comparable to the BBC or the ABC in Australia - is the PBS.
Those might appear to be trivial points to argue over or correct but they go to the heart of the discussion in this thread. Instead of people jumping to conclusions and being critical of Fox News perhaps we should pause for a few moments to think about what each of us really wants to say. If we don't get the facts right at the outset then any discussion on this topic is futile.
For the record, this car chase was picked up by the affiliates in Phoenix and its environs. It was also covered however by affiliates in Tuscon, Las Vegas, San Diego and Los Angeles. Their coverage wasn't extensive but it covered the story as it had the potential to impact upon traffic and public safety in the south-west. At this point it becomes a story of interest to network news directors and editors in New York. That said, the primary networks (ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC) would not break into programming to cover the story. The cable and satellite news stations - such as CNN and Fox - would in all probability monitor and cover the story.
It might be useful, therefore, to summarise the story for those of you on here that call into question editorial decisions without first being in possession of all of the facts:
1) The individual concerned had attacked a car that was pulling out of a driveway. The window was smashed in.
2) This individual walked to a car park at a nearby restaurant. He was armed and hijacked the car used in the car chase.
3) Eventually, the police located the car and began to follow it at a distance. The stolen car drove by a police car that was not involved in the surveillance and the individual drove towards the police car and fired shots at it.
4) During this, one of the other police vehicles was hit by the stolen car. Nobody was injured.
5) The stolen car made its way to I-10 and headed west towards the Arizona-California stateline. It was pursued by the police. About 70 miles from the stateline the individual pulled over, got out of the car, fled on foot and shot himself.
6) This all took place over 90 minutes.
This information was available to the news directors at affiliates in and around Phoenix. They chose to cover the story as this information came to light and as the story developed. From the perspective of those at the Fox News Channel, a story had broken in the south west in which:
A) A car had been stolen in a carjacking.
B) Whilst pursuing the car, the individual had driven into a police car and fired a gun at the police. The news director or editor responsible in New York assumed, quite correctly therefore, that the man who was driving the car was armed and dangerous.
C) The car was on the Interstate and the suspect was heading toward California. The police were following. If it the car had crossed over into California it would have been a Federal crime.
Under those circumstances, and with that knowledge to hand, would any of you here, in this thread, have made that decision any differently? I would have made the same decision. I know very few news directors who would have done anything any different.
The purpose of these fora is to discuss television presentation. If that is to be done properly then members shouldn't wade into discussions with preconceived ideas as to the bias or reputation of a broadcaster. If television presentation is to be discussed properly then each member has a duty to present the facts fairly and not become mired in a narrow critique of an organisation based upon media ownership and political bias.
By that standard, Inspector Sands was correct and echoed something that I said earlier in this thread. A decision was taken to cover the story. It was an editorial decision. Those responsible for the decision made a subsequent decision, once the car chase was over and as the suspect fled on foot, to delay the broadcast in case something happened. This was a perfectly reasonable decision to take and is no different to the 5-, 7-, or 10-second delays used during live events such as the Academy Awards or the Superbowl lest anybody involved should drop the F-bomb or suffer a wardrobe malfunction. Indeed, as Shepard Smith said in his on-air apology, Fox News makes these decisions frequently and filters out much of what happens so that the viewer does not see what occurs next. On this occasion, however, that safeguard failed. That is all.
Having seen the footage I am of a mind to agree with James and Larry the Loafer; it would appear that the delayed feed aired in the studio whilst the real-time feed was broadcast. I am also of a mind to agree (partially at least) with jjne; there are audible gasps in the studio that occur at the same time as the real-time feed. If anything can be concluded from this - and it is a conclusion based upon the experience of working in this environment - it is this: the delayed feed was aired on a monitor in the studio which Shepard Smith could see whilst the real-time feed was aired on other monitors in the studio also. The gasps are from those who have seen the real-time feed. I would hazard a guess also and say that the moment that his colleagues in the studio gasped was the moment that Shepard Smith realised that something had gone wrong with the broadcast and was advising the control room to cut away. If his colleagues were reacting to something that he had not yet seen then it's likely he concluded that there was a problem. Unfortunately the real-time feed was broadcast too.
I will say it again; sound editorial decisions were made by those with a far greater knowledge of the situation at the time. A decision was taken to delay the broadcast in case something untoward occurred. Sadly, on this occasion, unlike on so many others that have gone before, an error occurred. Mistakes happen. That is the nature of life and that is one of the risks inherent in covering a breaking or developing story.
If you want to discuss the merits of the story, the facts behind the story, and the editorial decisions then do so. These pages will be all the more richer for a more balanced and rounded debate. If you want to use this as an opportunity to offer irresponsible and prejudiced opinions that contribute little if anything to the discussion then you've come to the wrong place.