Fox News airs suicide

OFCOM doesn't make decisions about whether they investigate an incident like this or not. They react to complaints. So, if anybody makes a complaint to OFCOM about the incident, they are obliged to investigate it. If nobody complains, nothing will be investigated.

The problem with that is, people who didn't watch it when it aired only complain if they hear it or read it somewhere else, which makes it (to me) pointless.

What on earth makes you think that I am disillusioned towards CBS and CNN? There is nothing in my comments to suggest that I am dejected or disappointed by either company.

You're making a lot of unproven assumptions.

Tragedy is a very emotive word. I wouldn't use it to describe anything remotely like this. It's definitely a sad outcome, but from the reports I've seen, this guy was a career criminal. His action actually saved the US justice system a helluva lot of money, cos they don't have to keep him alive in a prison.

At the end of the day, the sadness of the man committing suicide for any family he had, and we don't really know that either, is balanced out by the amount of money the US Government just saved on not having to keep him in prison.

That might sound cold to you, but everything balances in life. You just have to be open enough to see it.

Sweeping statement? No, try statement of fact. FOX News, has been caught in more lies than any other of the other 24 hour news networks or major news services. You should check out Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting and Media Matters For America, for numerous examples of Fox News lies. There have also been several studies that have shown that FOX News viewers are always the least informed of any television news viewers. Plus, Murdoch's various news operations are notorious for either oputright lying and making up stories just to sell more newspapers. How many times has the Sun and the News of the World been sued and paid out money for making stuff up? Loads. If you seriously think that any news organisation related to Murdoch is even reliable, then you need to do some research.

And as for your example of bad journalism, that can be put down primarily to two things. One, trying to be the first to get the story out. Two, the overriding expectation was that the court was going to find against President Obama in that case, when in fact, they found for him. That was a big shock at the time. So, not even close to comparable. Apples and Oranages.

Rupert Murdoch? Common Sense? Ethical Behaviour??? Don't make me laugh! Rupert Murdoch wouldn't know his ethics from his suffix. Or have you forgotten how many times the Sun and the News of the World were sued for making up stories?


You know he killed himself? How is that not a personal tragedy exactly?[/quote]

Tragedy is a very emotive word, and is often overused, much like genius and legend.

It's sad that he couldn't face life on the run. It's sad that he couldn't face life in prison. It's more sad that he couldn't keep on the straight and narrow in the first place. But tragedy? No.

Some years ago, some neighbours of ours lost their son, because he committed suicide. But he committed suicide because he was dumped by his girlfriend. What made that a tragedy, was that after dousing himself and his car in petrol, and setting it alight, he had a change of heart, and tried to run from the car. The police found his body about 50 feet away from the burnt out wreck of the car. Now that was a tragedy. This Arizona suicide? No, tragedy is too strong a word.

I am all too familiar with the organisations and think tanks, such as Media Matters, and their work. I don't need to check them out. For that matter, I could direct you to News Busters, which you've conveniently left from your list. The point I was making, however, is that you made a rather generic statement, a sweeping statement, that offered no justification for your argument and provided no evidence to support it. It is only when your comment was challenged (as I did) that you offered any form of argument or rebuttal. If you would care to refer to the end of my post I did say that these threads would be far richer and far more insightful if people thought about their comments first and explained what they mean.



Given that I've worked alongside the journalists, editors and producers in the field from some of those very organisations you refer to I think that I'm in a far better position to testify to their reliability.

For the record, if you refer to my earlier post (in which I replied to WW Update) I pointed out that I am, in fact, a registered Democrat and have not worked for Fox News. I come from a position on the political spectrum entirely opposite to that of Fox News.

A quick Google gives this definition.

Without knowing too much of the personal circumstances of this individual, it's more than likely going to be causing great suffering for any family or close friends. Especially if they happened to witness it on television.

It's also a destruction of a human life, that with every probability had they set out on a different road could have been so different.

Oh, and thanks for depressing everyone with that story.

Excuse me, why should anybody have to justify something that is undeniable fact? You are basically saying that the truth and a lie should have equal weight. That is neither fair, nor balanced, nor objective. This false idea that by offering both the truth, and an opposition lie, and giving both equal time and credence is somehow objective journalism, has got to stop. Your contention that FOX News and MSNBC are the same is equally a false equivalence. MSNBC do not lie to their audience on a daily basis. Yes they make mistakes some times, but FOX News by comparison, is lying to their audience multiple times a day. Not even close to equivalent.



Tell me something, quite seriously. Did you work the beat around crime and the courts, on a regular basis? I have my suspicion, but I would like to know the answer before I continue with my point.

No, I didn't work on either the crime or the courts (at least not with any regularity). I worked on domestic news, specialising in economic and political stories.

Somehow, I don't see this news story fitting that definition.



How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in? We don't know what family he had. We can't assume he had any close family, nor can we assume that he didn't. We don't know, so do not assume. As an old work colleague of mine once said, when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me .



But it wasn't. You have to deal with the facts, not could have been or should have been, but the actual facts.

And please, don't tabloidise it by using such emotive words, like tragedy. The facts of the case are not good, they leave me feeling a little sad about what happened, that he couldn't be returned to the path of the straight and narrow, but to over emotionalise it, by using emotive words like tragedy, does nothing to help anyone.

I had you down as a political beat reporter, so I wasn't far wrong.

I have had many years of experience dealing with police and criminals, at the sharp end and have spent a not insignifcant amount of time in courts, but always as an observer. I have also followed politics on both sides of the Atlantic since the mid 80s. My belief is the longer you spend inside the bubble that is politics, the less grounded you are in the real world outside the political bubble. All the time I have spent dealing with police, has only strengthened my belief that you cannot give equal credence to both the truth and an opposition lie.

After the way the media handled the 9/11 aftermath in Washington, something that PBS's Frontline did a great documentary on, I have serious doubts about just how good those who are on the political beat day in and day out are at bringing politicians to account, and I have to say I think there are similar problems, though not so bad, in other countries, such as the UK, Ireland, Canada and Australia.